Understanding Type 2 Diabetes Self-Management in Racial/Ethnic Minorities: Application of the Extended Parallel Processing Model and Sensemaking Theory in a Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to understand the role of perceived disease threat and self-efficacy in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients' self-management by using the extended parallel processing model (EPPM) and sensemaking theory. METHODS: Semistructured interviews (n = 25) were conducted with T2DM patients from an urban safety-net hospital. Participants were 50% male/female median age was 55 years and 76% were Black. Participants were categorized by EPPM group based on validated questionnaires (high/low disease threat [HT/LT]; high/low self-efficacy [HE/LE]). Nine were HT/HE, 7 HT/LE, 6 LT/HE, and 3 LT/LE. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive and deductive coding. Sensemaking theory was applied to contextualize and analyze data. RESULTS: Those with HT indicated threat fluctuated throughout diagnosis but that certain triggers (eg, diabetic complications) drove changes in disease view. Those in the HT/HE group more frequently expressed disease acceptance, whereas the HT/LE group more often expressed anger or denial. HT/HE participants expressed having adequate social support and higher trust in health care providers. HT/LE participants reported limited problem-solving skills. In those with LT, the HE group took more ownership of self-management behaviors. The LT/LE group had heightened positive and negative emotional responses that appeared to limit their ability to perform self-care. They also less frequently described problem-solving skills, instead expressing reliance on medical guidance from their providers. CONCLUSIONS: EPPM and sensemaking theory are effective frameworks for understanding how perceived health threat and self-efficacy may impede T2DM self-care. A greater focus on these constructs is needed to improve care among low-income minority patients, especially those with low threat and self-efficacy.

The Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Pilot Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intervention Designed to Reduce Readmission Risk of Adults with Diabetes.

Hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge (30-day readmission) is a high-priority quality measure and cost target. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and efficacy of the Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Program on readmission risk in high-risk adults with diabetes. This was a non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared usual care (UC) to DiaTOHC at a safety-net hospital. The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day readmission. Between 16 October 2017 and 30 May 2019, 93 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 14 (31.1%) of 45 DiaTOHC subjects and 15 (32.6%) of 46 UC subjects had a 30-day readmission, while 35.6% DiaTOHC and 39.1% UC subjects had a 30-day readmission or ED visit. The Intervention−UC cost ratio was 0.33 (0.13−0.79) 95%CI. At least 93% of subjects were satisfied with key intervention components. Among the 69 subjects with baseline HbA1c >7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 30-day readmission rates were 23.5% (DiaTOHC) and 31.4% (UC) and composite 30-day readmission/ED visit rates were 26.5% (DiaTOHC) and 40.0% (UC). In this subgroup, the Intervention−UC cost ratio was 0.21 (0.08−0.58) 95%CI. The DiaTOHC Program may be feasible and may decrease combined 30-day readmission/ED visit risk as well as healthcare costs among patients with HbA1c levels >7.0% (53 mmol/mol).

Some characteristics of hyperglycaemic crisis differ between patients with and without COVID-19 at a safety-net hospital in a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patients with DKA, hyperglycaemic hyperosmolar syndrome (HHS), or mixed DKA-HHS and COVID-19 [COVID (+)] to COVID-19-negative (-) [COVID (-)] patients with DKA/HHS from a low-income, racially/ethnically diverse catchment area. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with patients admitted to an urban academic medical center between 1 March and 30 July 2020. Eligible patients met lab criteria for either DKA or HHS. Mixed DKA-HHS was defined as meeting all criteria for either DKA or HHS with at least 1 criterion for the other diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 82 participants were stratified by COVID-19 status and type of hyperglycaemic crisis [26 COVID (+) and 56 COVID (-)]. A majority were either Black or Hispanic. Compared with COVID (-) patients, COVID (+) patients were older, more Hispanic and more likely to have type 2 diabetes (T2D, 73% vs 48%, p < .01). COVID(+) patients had a higher mean pH (7.25 ± 0.10 vs 7.16 ± 0.16, p < .01) and lower anion gap (18.7 ± 5.7 vs 22.7 ± 6.9, p = .01) than COVID (-) patients. COVID (+) patients were given less intravenous fluids in the first 24 h (2.8 ± 1.9 vs 4.2 ± 2.4 L, p = .01) and were more likely to receive glucocorticoids (95% vs. 11%, p < .01). COVID (+) patients may have taken longer to resolve their hyperglycaemic crisis (53.3 ± 64.8 vs 28.8 ± 27.5 h, p = .09) and may have experienced more hypoglycaemia <3.9 mmol/L (35% vs 19%, p = .09). COVID (+) patients had a higher length of hospital stay (LOS, 14.8 ± 14.9 vs 6.5 ± 6.0 days, p = .01) and in-hospital mortality (27% vs 7%, p = .02). DISCUSSION: Compared with COVID (-) patients, COVID (+) patients with DKA/HHS are more likely to have T2D. Despite less severe metabolic acidosis, COVID (+) patients may require more time to resolve the hyperglycaemic crisis and experience more hypoglycaemia while suffering greater LOS and risk of mortality. Larger studies are needed to examine whether differences in management between COVID (+) and (-) patients affect outcomes with DKA/HHS.