ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Regular measurement of glycated hemoglobin (A1C) is logistically demanding. Home blotter-paper collection offers an alternative. This study tested the viability of at-home blotter-paper A1C measurement. METHODS: Objective: compare accuracy of A1C levels collected on blotter paper at home (home-blotter) and blotter-paper collection in laboratory (lab-blotter) with venous A1C (routine measurement). Agreement was assessed by Pearson correlation, Lin concordance correlation coeï¬cient (CCC), positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs) and Bland-Altman plots and associated statistics. RESULTS: Home-blotter, lab-blotter and venous A1C correlated strongly (0.93, 0.93). Home- and lab-blotter results were upwardly biased (0.387%, 0.1%). Bias increased with time. Bias correction provided agreement for both blotters (CCC >0.9); blotters correctly identifying levels above 7% (53 mmol/mol) were 100% for corrected home-blotters and 87% (95% confidence interval) for corrected lab-blotters. NPVs (% blotters correctly identifying levels of 7% or lower [53 mmol/mol]) were 100% for corrected home-blotters and 83% for corrected lab-blotters. After correction, >92% of corrected blotters had errors of 8% or less. Of our subjects, 88.5% found home sampling preferable to routine laboratory sampling. CONCLUSIONS: Home-blotter collection is an alternative to routine collection.
Subject(s)
Blood Specimen Collection/methods , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Dried Blood Spot Testing , Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis , Phlebotomy , Adult , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/standards , Blood Specimen Collection/standards , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Phlebotomy/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Self Care , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine rates of diabetes distress and depression in patients with type 2 diabetes in a tertiary care setting, to examine the relationship among glycemic control, diabetes distress and depression, and to identify predictors of diabetes distress and depression on the basis of demographic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: We recruited 148 adults with type 2 diabetes who were presenting to a specialty diabetes clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Participants completed a questionnaire measuring diabetes distress, depressive symptoms and demographic backgrounds. The Diabetes Distress Scale was used to assess overall distress as well as 4 distinct distress dimensions, including emotional burden, physician-related, regimen-related and interpersonal distress. The Personal Health Questionnaire-9 was used to assess depressive symptoms. Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) data were also collected. RESULTS: The prevalence of diabetes distress and depression was 39% and 12% in our population, respectively. A1C levels emerged as a significant predictor of emotional burden (p=0.03) and regimen-related distress (p=0.01); higher A1C levels were associated with increased distress regarding emotional functioning and regimen adherence. A1C levels (p=0.02) and education levels (p=0.03) emerged as predictors of physician-related distress, with higher A1C levels associated with decreased distress regarding confidence in physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal that the rate of diabetes distress for patients in a tertiary care setting is high. Furthermore, diabetes distress, particularly emotion- and self-care-related distress, plays a significant role in glycemic control, whereas depression does not. Routine screening for diabetes distress as part of an initial specialty clinic evaluation should be explored.
