Transition to insulin in Type 2 diabetes: family physicians' misconception of patients' fears contributes to existing barriers

Abstract Background Many patients with Type 2 diabetes require treatment with insulin but do not receive it. Aim To examine the barriers that hinder the transition to insulin from the point of view of patients and family physicians. Methods Patients: Study group (SG)—92 patients who need insulin (ma...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of diabetes and its complications 2007-07, Vol.21 (4), p.220-226
Main Authors: Nakar, Sasson, Yitzhaki, Gila, Rosenberg, Reena, Vinker, Shlomo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Attitude
Barriers
Diabetes care
Diabetes mellitus
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - drug therapy
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - psychology
Endocrinology & Metabolism
Family Practice
Fear - psychology
Female
Humans
Insulin - administration & dosage
Insulin - therapeutic use
Knowledge
Life Style
Male
Middle Aged
Physician-Patient Relations
Psychological insulin resistance
Truth Disclosure
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background Many patients with Type 2 diabetes require treatment with insulin but do not receive it. Aim To examine the barriers that hinder the transition to insulin from the point of view of patients and family physicians. Methods Patients: Study group (SG)—92 patients who need insulin (maximum oral medications and HbA1c >8.5%). Control group (CG)—101 patients who had begun insulin medication recently. Patients were interviewed about attitudes and beliefs regarding their illness and insulin treatment. Physicians: 157 family physicians completed a questionnaire regarding barriers to insulin treatment and answered an open-ended question about the criteria for starting insulin. Results In comparing between barriers of SG patients and perspectives of the CG patients, SG patients perceived their illness as not very serious (46.7% vs. 7%, P
ISSN:1056-8727
1873-460X
DOI:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2006.02.004