How diabetes and insulin therapy affects the lives of people with type 1 diabetes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/edn.50Keywords:
Diabetes, qualitative, patient treatment preferencesAbstract
AbstractBackground: Management of type 1 diabetes places a considerable burden upon patients in terms of frequent insulin injections and blood glucose monitoring.
Aims: Patients’ fears and thoughts concerning diabetes and treatment were explored in two focus groups. The features of insulin therapy most likely to influence treatment preferences of type 1 patients were investigated. These features would then be used to inform a quantitative patient preference study using a discrete choice experiment.
Method: This qualitative study utilised two focus groups, guided by a detailed discussion script based upon clinician input and literature review. Six main topics related to diabetes and insulin therapy were discussed; impact on patient’s lifestyle, hypoglycaemic events, predictability and ability to maintain blood glucose levels within recommended targets, injection devices, and negative effects of insulin therapies. In addition, the value people would place on improved insulin therapy measured in terms of their willingness to pay for new therapies, was discussed. Participants were recruited using a screener based upon clinician input. A total of 11 participants attended the two sessions. Transcripts were analysed using content analysis.
Results: Participants reported that all six areas were of significant importance in diabetes management. Diabetes and insulin therapy had a huge impact on lifestyle in terms of activity and diet. Fear and experience of hypoglycaemic events were reported as significant concerns. Participants described predicting variation in glucose levels as the key to better management. Participants were willing to pay from £0.70 to £5.00 a day for a better insulin therapy.
Conclusion: Diabetes and insulin therapy affects many areas of a patient’s life. These data may help understand patients’ motivations and treatment preferences, and shape future management and improve diabetic care.
Downloads
References
International Diabetes Federation (2005) . http://www.eadas.idf.org/Prevalence/All_diabetes/ [Accessed June 2006].
DCCT Research Group. The absence of a glycemic threshold for the development of long-term compli-cations: the perspective of the Diabetes Control and Compli-cations Trial. Diabetes 1996; 45: 1289–1298.
Perros P, Deary IJ, Frier BM. Factors influencing preference of insulin reg-imen in people with type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes. Diabetes Clin Res Pract 1998; 39: 23–29.
Peyrot M, Rubin R, Lauritzen T et al. Psychological problems and barriers to improved diabetes management: results of the Cross-National Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) study. Diabetes Med 2005; 22: 1379–1385.
National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diag-nosis and management of type 1 dia-betes in children, young people and adults. London, UK. http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=213575. [Accessed February 2006]
Department of Health. National Service Framework for Diabetes: Delivery Strategy. London: DoH, 2002.
Ryan M, Farrar S. Eliciting prefer-ence for healthcare using conjoint analysis. BMJ2000; 320: 1530–1533.
Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Sauriol L, Lescrauwaet B. Risking health to avoid in injections - Preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005; 28(9): 2243–2245.
Rosal MC, Goins KV, Carbone ET, et al. Views and preferences of low-lit-erate Hispanics regarding diabetes education: results of formative research. Health Educ Behav 2004; 31(3): 388–405.
Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, et aL. Patient preference and will-ingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multi-country application of a discrete choice experiment. Value in Health 2004; 7(4): 442–454.
Holsti OR. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 1969.
Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. The Sage CommText Series. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 1980.
Graneheim U, Lundman B. Quali-tative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004; 24: 105–112.
DAFNE Study Group. Training in flexible, intensive insulin manage-ment to enable dietary freedom in people with type 1 diabetes: dose adjustment for normal eating (DAFNE) randomised controlled trial. BMJ2002; 325: 746–749.
Irvine AA, Cox D, Gonder-Frederick L. Fear of hypoglycemia: relationship to physical and psycho-logical symptoms in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Health Psychol1992; 11: 135–138.
Shiu, ATY, Wong RYM. Fears and worries associated with hypogly-caemia and diabetes complications: perceptions and experience of Hong Kong Chinese clients. J Adv Nurs 2002; 39: 155–163.
Chen JW, Christiansen JS, Lauritzen T. Limitations to subcutaneous insulin administration in type 1 dia-betes. Diabetes Obes Metabolism 2003; 5: 223–233.
Heise T, Nosek L, Biilmann Ronn B, et al. Lower within-subject variability of insulin detemir in comparison to NPH insulin and insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2004; 53: 1614–1620.
Cairns JA, van der Pol MM. The esti-mation of marginal time preference in a UK-wide sample (TEMPUS) proj-ect. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4(1).
Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Lauritzen T et al. Patient and provider perceptions of care for diabetes: results of the cross-national DAWN study. Diabetologia 2006; 49(2): 279–288.
Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Lauritzen T, et aL. Resistance to insulin therapy among patients and providers. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 2673–2679.
Wikblad K, Leksell J, Smide B. 'I'm the Boss': testing the feasibility of an evidence-based patient education programme using problem-based learning. Eur Diabetes Nursing 2004; 1: 13–17.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2006 Copyright © 2006 FEND
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
