ABSTRACT
AIMS: The phenomenon of psychological insulin resistance (PIR) has been well documented for two decades, but interventions to treat PIR have not been well described. The aim of this study was to describe interventions used to treat psychological insulin resistance by certified diabetes educators (CDE's). METHODS: A secondary data analysis study using empirical data from a trial (N = 234) that included four CDEs providing counseling for psychological insulin resistance. Participants not currently using insulin completed the 10-item Barriers to Insulin Therapy measure. The four CDE interventionists documented their approach to addressing participants' barriers to taking insulin using a standard form. Recommendations were collated and summarized. RESULTS: Strong PIR was shown by 28.4% of participants reporting that they "would not start insulin" and a moderate degree of PIR was shown by 61.2% who said they "would be upset, but would start insulin." The CDE's treated PIR with four primary interventions: 1) teaching and providing explanations, 2) demonstrations and sharing examples of success using insulin therapy, 3) return demonstrations, and 4) addressing feelings and positively managing expectations. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to describe in some detail potentially effective patient management strategies for PIR. A randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of PIR interventions is needed.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To determine whether glycemic control is improved when motivational interviewing (MI), a patient-centered behavior change strategy, is used with diabetes self management education (DSME) as compared to DSME alone. METHODS: poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients (n=234) were randomized into 4 groups: MI+DSME or DSME alone, with or without use of a computerized summary of patient self management barriers. We compared HbA1c changes between groups at 6 months and investigated mediators of HbA1c change. RESULTS: study patients attended the majority of the four intervention visits (mean 3.4), but drop-out rate was high at follow-up research visits (35%). Multiple regression showed that groups receiving MI had a mean change in HbA1c that was significantly lower (less improved) than those not receiving MI (t=2.10; p=0.037). Mediators of HbA1c change for the total group were diabetes self-care behaviors and diabetes distress; no between-group differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: DSME improved blood glucose control, underlining its benefit for T2DM management. However, MI+DSME was less effective than DSME alone. Overall, weak support was found for the clinical utility of MI in the management of T2DM delivered by diabetes educators.
