How Many Diabetes Patients Know the Name of Hypoglycemic Agents They Are Taking?

BACKGROUND: Numerous diabetes patients do not know the name of hypoglycemic agents that they are taking, even though they have taken them for a long time. The aim of this study was to find out the percentage of diabetes patients who recognize the name of their hypoglycemic agents and to clarify whether such recognition have effect on their glycemic control. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was done from March to May 2004, targeting in-patients and out-patients who had been taking oral hypoglycemic agents for diabetes treatment in 2 hospitals. RESULTS: 134 patients (89.3%) of 150 completed the questionnaire. Only 20 (14.9%) patients accurately knew the name of at least one of the hypoglycemic agents they were taking. Smoking (P=0.0086), recognition of the name of hypoglycemic agents (P<0.0001), history of change of prescribed hypoglycemic agents (P=0.0095), diet and exercise (P<0.0001), explanation of hypoglycemic agents (P=0.0231), and forgetting to toke medicine (P<0.0001) were significantly related to the HbA1c level. Among these factors, history of change of prescribed hypoglycemic agents (P=0.0006), diet and exercise (P=0.0002), and forgetting to take medicine (P<0.0001) were the independent related factors after adjustment. CONCLUSION: The recognition rate of the name of hypoglycemic agents was low. It may be associated with patients' HbA1c, but was not an independent related factor.

An Analysis of Attitudes on Euthanasia between Residents and Judicial Apprentices

BACKGROUND: Recently, the legal and ethical issues relative to euthanasia are becoming controversial in Korea. This study was designed to verify the differences of the attitudes on euthanasia between judicial apprentices and residents. METHODS: The questionnaire was conducted on the 35th-group of the judicial apprentices on March 24, 2004, and on the residents from April 2 to May 22, 2004. The respondents were 636 in total consisting of 460 judicial apprentices and 176 residents. RESULTS: Of the total 636 subjects, 373 (81.1%) of the judicial apprentices and 149 (84.7%) of residents agreed that allowing euthanasia is moral, without any significant difference (P>0.05). The number of residents was greater (59 people, 33.5%) than that of judicial apprentices (112 people, 24.4%) who agreed with active euthanasia (P0.05). But, among these supporters, the respondents who agreed on active euthanasia were significantly different in number between judicial apprentices (n=93, 23.4%) and residents (n=54, 33.8%) (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: This study did not find any significant differences between the two groups in the necessity of the law for euthanasia, but the rate of agreement on active euthanasia was higher in residents group than in judicial apprentices group.