Effects of a Digital Patient Empowerment and Communication Tool on Metabolic Control in People With Type 2 Diabetes: The DeMpower Multicenter Ambispective Study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a major health care problem, reaching epidemic numbers worldwide. Reducing hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels to recommended targets is associated with a marked decrease in the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)-related complications. The implementation of new technologies, particularly telemedicine, may be helpful to facilitate self-care and empower people with T2DM, leading to improved metabolic control of the disease. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the effect of a home digital patient empowerment and communication tool (DeMpower App) on metabolic control in people with inadequately controlled T2DM. METHODS: The DeMpower study was multicenter with a retrospective (observational: 52 weeks of follow-up) and prospective (interventional: 52 weeks of follow-up) design that included people with T2DM, aged ≥18 and ≤80 years, with HbA1c levels ≥7.5% to ≤9.5%, receiving treatment with noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents, and able to use a smartphone app. Individuals were randomly assigned (2:1) to the DeMpower app-empowered group or control group. We describe the effect of empowerment on the proportion of patients achieving the study glycemic target, defined as HbA1c≤7.5% with a ≥0.5% reduction in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was stopped prematurely, and 50 patients (33 in the DeMpower app-empowered group and 17 in the control group) were analyzed. There was a trend toward a higher proportion of patients achieving the study glycemic target (46% vs 18%; P=.07) in the DeMpower app group that was statistically significant when the target was HbA1c≤7.5% (64% vs 24%; P=.02) or HbA1c≤8% (85% vs 53%; P=.02). The mean HbA1c was significantly reduced at week 24 (-0.81, SD 0.89 vs -0.15, SD 1.03; P=.03); trends for improvement in other cardiovascular risk factors, medication adherence, and satisfaction were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that patient empowerment through home digital tools has a potential effect on metabolic control, which might be even more relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic and in a digital health scenario.

Adherence, control of cardiometabolic factors and therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting.

INTRODUCTION: Studies on treatment adherence to glucose-lowering drugs among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) including concomitant treatment for other cardiovascular risk factors are scarce. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of good adherence to all medications used to control diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia and to analyse cardiometabolic control and its associated factors in T2D patients in the primary care (PC) setting. METHODS: Observational, retrospective study conducted in adult patients with T2D who were followed in the PC setting in Spain. Patients were classified as adherent in a particular category if the summary of the proportion of days covered (PDC) for a particular medication category was ≥80% and were considered globally adherent if the PDC was ≥80% for each of the 3 medication categories. RESULTS: A total of 457 evaluable patients were recruited, among which 321 patients (70.3%, 95% CI 65.8 to 74.4) were adherent to the three drug categories. The proportion of patients controlled for the 3 cardiometabolic risk factors was 31% according to the contemporary clinical practice guideline criteria, 58% according to investigator judgment and 36% when the objective for HbA1c was individualized. In a multivariate analysis, presenting comorbidities was associated with a lower likelihood of showing adequate control of dyslipidemia (odds ratio [OR] 0.25, 95% CI, 0.16-0.40) and the three cardiometabolic factors as a whole (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.70). In a post hoc analysis, therapeutic inertia was found to be greater for dyslipidemia and hypertension than for T2D. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a relatively high adherence to all medications for treating diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia in patients with T2D in the PC setting in Spain, the control of cardiometabolic risk factors as a whole is far from optimal. This could be related, at least in part, to the high frequency of comorbidity of these patients.

Impact of Advanced Diabetes Centers on the healthcare experience of patients with type 2 diabetes using the IEXPAC tool.

AIMS: To determine the experience with healthcare among patients with type 2 diabetes according to the assistance model provided in their primary care centers, and to determine factors related with their experience. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study performed in patients with type 2 diabetes with cardiovascular or renal complications. The patients were divided in two groups according to whether they had been attended in Advanced Diabetes centers (ADC) or the traditional assistance centers. Patient's healthcare experience was assessed with the "Instrument for Evaluation of the Experience of Chronic Patients" (IEXPAC) questionnaire, with possible scores ranging from 0 (worst experience) to 10 (best experience). RESULTS: A total of 451 patients (215 from ADC and 236 from traditional assistance centers) were included. The mean overall IEXPAC scores were 5.9 ±â€¯1.7 (ADC) and 6.0 ±â€¯1.9 (traditional assistance centers; p = 0.82). In the multivariant analyses, in ADC, the regular follow-up by the same physician (p = 0.01) and follow-up by a nurse (p = 0.01), were associated with a better patient experience, whereas receiving a higher number of medications with a worse patient experience (p = 0.04). In the traditional assistance centers, only the regular follow-up by the same physician was associated with a better experience (p = 0.02). Patients from ADC centers reported a higher score in the quality of life scale (69.1 ±â€¯16.5 vs 64.6 ±â€¯17.5; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In general, the healthcare experience of type 2 diabetic patients with their sanitary assistance can be improved. Patients from ADC centers report a higher score in the quality of life scale.

Experience of Patients with Diabetes and Other Cardiovascular Risk Factors with Health Professionals and Healthcare in Spain.

We aimed to evaluate the experience of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with healthcare received in Spain. This was a retrospective, observational study in patients with T2DM cared for in primary healthcare (PHC) centers. A cross-sectional analysis of the patients' experience data was performed using the Instrument for the Evaluation of the Experience of Chronic Patients (IEXPAC). A total of 475 patients with T2DM were recruited from 36 PHC centers, of which 248 (52.2%) completed the IEXPAC questionnaire. The IEXPAC total mean score (range 0-10) was 7 points, with an average "new relational model" score of 2.5 points. The mean continuity of care score after hospital discharge was 6.2 points. The results showed that 8% of the patients always or almost always used the internet to check their medical history, appointments or other data from their healthcare service, and 15% responded that healthcare professionals always or almost always informed them of forums or other reliable internet sites to obtain information about their illness. The study results show that there is a wide margin for improvement in the experience of patients with T2DM with healthcare in Spain, especially regarding the information patients receive or can obtain.

Healthcare experience among patients with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional survey using the IEXPAC tool.

Aim: To assess the experience with health care among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and to evaluate patients' demographic variables and healthcare-related characteristics which may affect their experience. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was delivered to T2DM adults. Patient experiences were assessed with the 'Instrument for Evaluation of the Experience of Chronic Patients' (IEXPAC) questionnaire, a validated 12-item survey, which describes patient experience within the last 6 months (items 1-11) and hospitalization in the last 3 years (item 12), with possible scores ranging from 0 (worst) to 10 (best experience). Results: A total of 451 T2DM patients responded to the survey (response rate 72.3%; mean age 69.5 ± 10.1 years, 67.8% men). The mean overall IEXPAC score was 5.92 ± 1.80. Mean scores were higher for productive interactions (7.92 ± 2.15) and self-management (7.08 ± 2.27) than for new relational model (1.72 ± 2.01). Only 32.8% of patients who had been hospitalized in the past 3 years reported having received a follow-up call or visit after discharge. Multivariate analyses identified that regular follow-up by the same physician and follow-up by a nurse were associated with a better patient experience. Continuity of healthcare score was higher only in those patients requiring help from others. Conclusions: The areas of T2DM care which may need to be addressed to ensure better patient experience are use of the Internet, new technologies and social resources for patient information and interaction with healthcare professionals, closer follow-up after hospitalization, and a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach with regular follow-up by the same physician and a nurse.