Prevalence and factors associated with diabetes-related distress in type 2 diabetes patients: a study in Hong Kong primary care setting.

Diabetes-related distress (DRD) refers to the psychological distress specific to living with diabetes. DRD can lead to negative clinical consequences such as poor self-management. By knowing the local prevalence and severity of DRD, primary care teams can improve the DRD evaluation in our daily practice. This was a cross-sectional study conducted in 3 General Out-patient Clinics (GOPCs) from 1 December 2021 to 31 May 2022. A random sample of adult Chinese subjects with T2DM, who regularly followed up in the selected clinic in the past 12 months, were included. DRD was measured by the validated 15-item Chinese version of the Diabetes Distress Scale (CDDS-15). An overall mean score ≥ 2.0 was considered clinically significant. The association of DRD with selected clinical and personal factors was investigated. The study recruited 362 subjects (mean age 64.2 years old, S.D. 9.5) with a variable duration of living with T2DM (median duration 7.0 years, IQR 10.0). The response rate was 90.6%. The median HbA1c was 6.9% (IQR 0.9). More than half (59.4%) of the subjects reported a clinically significant DRD. Younger subjects were more likely to have DRD (odds ratio of 0.965, 95% CI 0.937-0.994, p = 0.017). Patients with T2DM in GOPCs commonly experience clinically significant DRD, particularly in the younger age group. The primary care clinicians could consider integrating the evaluation of DRD as a part of comprehensive diabetes care.

Morbidity Patterns in Primary Care in Hong Kong: Protocol for a Practice-Based Morbidity Survey.

BACKGROUND: Up-to-date and accurate information about the health problems encountered by primary care doctors is essential to understanding the morbidity pattern of the community to better inform health care policy and practice. Morbidity surveys of doctors allow documentation of actual consultations, reflecting the patient's reason for seeking care as well as the doctor's diagnostic interpretation of the illness and management approach. Such surveys are particularly critical in the absence of a centralized primary care electronic medical record database. OBJECTIVE: With the changing sociodemographic profile of the population and implementation of health care initiatives in the past 10 years, the aim of this study is to determine the morbidity and management patterns in Hong Kong primary care during a pandemic and compare the results with the last survey conducted in 2007-2008. METHODS: This will be a prospective, practice-based survey of Hong Kong primary care doctors. Participants will be recruited by convenience and targeted sampling from both public and private sectors. Participating doctors will record the health problems and corresponding management activities for consecutive patient encounters during one designated week in each season of the year. Coding of health problems will follow the International Classification of Primary Care, Second Edition. Descriptive statistics will be used to calculate the prevalence of health problems and diseases as well as the rates of management activities (referral, investigation, prescription, preventive care). Nonlinear mixed effects models will assess the differences between the private and public sectors as well as factors associated with morbidity and management patterns in primary care. RESULTS: The data collection will last from March 1, 2021, to August 31, 2022. As of April 2022, 176 doctor-weeks of data have been collected. CONCLUSIONS: The results will provide information about the health of the community and inform the planning and allocation of health care resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04736992; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04736992. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37334.

Knowledge and practice of home blood pressure monitoring 6 months after the risk and assessment management programme: does health literacy matter?

BACKGROUND: Little is known whether patients with lower health literacy could retain the practice and knowledge of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) after an educational programme. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial in five primary care clinics recruited participants with uncontrolled hypertension. Clinics were randomised either to a HBPM group education (Risk Assessment and Management Programme (RAMP-group), or individual counselling of self-management (RAMP-individual). Health literacy was assessed by the Chinese Health Literacy Scale for Chronic Care. Practice and knowledge of HBPM were surveyed by a 10-item HBPM knowledge checklist and patient record review 6 months after interventions. Predictors for regular HBPM and good HBPM knowledge were assessed by multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: 287 participants (RAMP-group: 151; RAMP-individual: 136) were follow-up for 6 months. 272 participants completed the knowledge questionnaires (response rate 94.8%). 67.8% of the participants performed HBPM regularly, and there was no statistical difference between both interventions. Age more than 65 (adjusted odds ratios (aOR) 2.58, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.86, p=0.003), not working (aOR 2.34, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.97, p=0.027)and adequate health literacy (aOR 2.25, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.95, p=0.005) predicted regular HBPM. Participants in RAMP-group demonstrated a significant lower body weight than those in RAMP-individual (-0.3±2.0 kg vs +0.7 ±1.7 kg, p<0.001).The RAMP-group participants were eight times more likely to have full HBPM knowledge score than the RAMP-individual participants (aOR 8.46, 95% CI 4.68 to 15.28, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients could retain HBPM knowledge better after RAMP-group than RAMP-individual. Older, retired and patients with adequate health literacy were more likely to continue weekly HBPM 6 months after education. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02551393.

A cluster-randomized study on the Risk Assessment and Management Program for home blood pressure monitoring in an older population with inadequate health literacy.

The Risk Assessment and Management Program (RAMP) has successfully demonstrated a reduction of blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular (CVD) risk of patients with hypertension. This study aimed to compare the blood pressure control rate of participants after attended RAMP group, with those attended RAMP individual from usual care. A prospective open cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in five public primary care clinics. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension were recruited. RAMP group consisted of multi-disciplinary group education on knowledge of hypertension, lifestyle modification, and hands-on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) training. Each participant was given a branchial HBPM device. An individual face-to-face nurse follow-up was arranged 6 weeks later. Participants' office BP and clinical parameters were assessed at 6, 12, and 18 months. Three RAMP group and two RAMP-individual clusters recruited 152 and 139 participants, respectively. The mean age was 67.0 (SD 9.9) year. After 18 months of treatment, there was a significantly higher BP control rate in the RAMP-group participants than the RAMP-individual participants (78.9% vs 36.5%, P < .001). The systolic BP was reduced by 19.7 mm Hg (95% CI -22.03, -17.40, P < .001) and diastolic BP by 8.1 mm Hg (95% CI -9.66, -6.61, P < .001) in RAMP group while the RAMP individual demonstrated 9.3 mm Hg (95% CI -12.1, -6.4, P < .001) reduction in systolic BP without any significant difference in diastolic BP. The RAMP-group participants' body weight (BW) and body mass index(BMI) had no significant changes, while the RAMP-individual participants had a significant increase in BW and BMI. No adverse effect was reported.

The Association of Health Literacy with High-Quality Home Blood Pressure Monitoring for Hypertensive Patients in Outpatient Settings.

Worldwide hypertension (HT) guidelines recommend use of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) in patients with persistent suboptimal blood pressure (BP) readings. It is not clear how patients with limited health literacy could perform HBPM to assist BP control. This study aimed at finding the association between HBPM and patients from lower socioeconomic classes, particularly on the effect of health literacy or educational level. Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) were searched for primary studies with keywords including educational level, health literacy, numeracy, home blood pressure monitoring, accuracy, and quality. The PRISMA guideline was followed. The quality of the literature was assessed by the Cochrane tool and modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Nineteen interventional studies and 29 cross-sectional studies were included. Different populations used different cutoffs to report patients' educational level, whereas health literacy was rarely measured. Three studies used psychometric validated tools to assess health literacy. The quality of HBPM could be assessed by the completion of the procedures' checklist or the number of HBPM readings recorded. The association between subjects' health literacy or educational level and the quality of HBPM was variable. The interventional studies showed that increasing professional-patient contact time could improve patients' knowledge, efficacy, and quality of HBPM. Conclusion. Patients' educational level and literacy were not the limiting factors to acquire high-quality HBPM. High-quality HBPM could be achieved by the structured educational intervention. The quality and amount of evidence on this topic are limited. Therefore, further studies are warranted.

SF-6D utility scores of smokers and ex-smokers with or without respiratory symptoms attending primary care clinics.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this paper is to find out generic preference-based Short-Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D) utility scores of smokers and ex-smokers with varying cigarette exposure, with and without respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Seven hundred thirty one people aged ≥30 with a history of smoking who attended 5 public primary care clinics completed a cross-sectional survey using SF-6D utility score, Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale (BCSS©) and office spirometry. RESULTS: Most of the subjects were men (92.5%) in an older age group (mean age 62.2 ± 11.7 years). About half of them (48.3%) were current smokers while the other half (51.7%) were ex-smokers. More than half of them (54.2%) reported mild respiratory symptoms (mean BCSS score 0.95 ± 1.12). The most common symptoms were sputum (45.1%), followed by cough (34.2%) and breathlessness (6.0%). The SF-6D overall utility score was 0.850 ± 0.106. The subjects reported significantly lower SF-6D scores when they had breathlessness (0.752 ± 0.138; p = < 0.001), cough (0.836 ± 0.107; p = 0.007), sputum (0.838 ± 0.115; p = 0.004) or any of the above symptom (0.837 ± 0.113; p < 0.001). In both groups of current smokers and ex-smokers, there was no statistically significant difference in the scores among light, moderate or heavy smokers. In the Tobit regression model of factors affecting SF-6D utility score, subjects who reported more respiratory symptoms (i.e. higher BCSS©) had lower SF-6D scores (B = - 0.018 ± 0.007, p < 0.001), while men had higher SF-6D scores than women (B = 0.037 ± 0.031, p = 0.019). Subjects who attended middle or high school had higher SF-6D score than those attended the University or above. The presence of airflow obstruction was not associated with the score. CONCLUSIONS: The study yielded SF-6D utility scores of smokers and ex-smokers with different reported cigarette exposure, which could be useful in future clinical studies and cost-effectiveness analysis.