Person:

Abrahamson, Martin

Objective: To explore physicians’ awareness of and responses to type 2 diabetic patients’ social and emotional difficulties. Research Design and Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 physicians. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Three themes emerged: 1) physicians’ awareness of patients’ social and emotional difficulties: physicians recognized the frequency and seriousness of patients’ social and emotional difficulties; 2) physicians’ responses to patients’ social and emotional difficulties: many reported that intervening with these difficulties was challenging with few treatment options beyond making referrals, individualizing care, and recommending more frequent follow-up visits; and 3) the impact of patients’ social and emotional difficulties on physicians: few available patient treatment options, time constraints, and a perceived lack of psychological expertise contributed to physicians’ feeling frustrated, inadequate, and overwhelmed. Conclusions: Recognition and understanding of physicians’ challenges when treating diabetes patients’ social and emotional difficulties are important for developing programmatic interventions.

Abstract Background: Overseeing proper insulin initiation and titration remains a challenging task in diabetes care. Recent advances in mobile technology have enabled new models of collaborative care between patients and healthcare providers (HCPs). We hypothesized that the adoption of such technology could help individuals starting basal insulin achieve better glycemic control compared with standard clinical practice. Materials and Methods: This was a 12 ± 2-week randomized controlled study with 40 individuals with type 2 diabetes who were starting basal insulin due to poor glycemic control. The control group (n = 20) received standard face-to-face care and phone follow-up as needed in a tertiary center, whereas the intervention group (n = 20) received care through the cloud-based diabetes management program where regular communications about glycemic control and insulin doses were conducted via patient self-tracking tools, shared decision-making interfaces, secure text messages, and virtual visits (audio, video, and shared screen control) instead of office visits. Results: By intention-to-treat analysis, the intervention group achieved a greater hemoglobin A1c decline compared with the control group (3.2 ± 1.5% vs. 2.0% ± 2.0%; P = 0.048). The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire showed a significant improvement in the intervention group compared with the control group (an increase of 10.1 ± 11.7 vs. 2.1 ± 6.5 points; P = 0.01). HCPs spent less time with patients in the intervention group compared with those in the control group (65.9 min per subject vs. 81.6 min per subject). However, the intervention group required additional training time to use the mobile device. Conclusions: Mobile health technology could be an effective tool in sharing data, enhancing communication, and improving glycemic control while enabling collaborative decision making in diabetes care.