Medical advice and diabetes self-management reported by Mexican-American, Black- and White-non-Hispanic adults across the United States

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, particularly among minorities, and if improperly managed can lead to medical complications and death. Healthcare providers play vital roles in communicating standards of care, which include guidance on diabetes self-management. The background of the client may play a role in the patient-provider communication process. The aim of this study was to determine the association between medical advice and diabetes self care management behaviors for a nationally representative sample of adults with diabetes. Moreover, we sought to establish whether or not race/ethnicity was a modifier for reported medical advice received and diabetes self-management behaviors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed data from 654 adults aged 21 years and over with diagnosed diabetes [130 Mexican-Americans; 224 Black non-Hispanics; and, 300 White non-Hispanics] and an additional 161 with 'undiagnosed diabetes' [N = 815(171 MA, 281 BNH and 364 WNH)] who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2008. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate whether medical advice to engage in particular self-management behaviors (reduce fat or calories, increase physical activity or exercise, and control or lose weight) predicted actually engaging in the particular behavior and whether the impact of medical advice on engaging in the behavior differed by race/ethnicity. Additional analyses examined whether these relationships were maintained when other factors potentially related to engaging in diabetes self management such as participants' diabetes education, sociodemographics and physical characteristics were controlled. Sample weights were used to account for the complex sample design.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Although medical advice to the patient is considered a standard of care for diabetes, approximately one-third of the sample reported not receiving dietary, weight management, or physical activity self-management advice. Participants who reported being given medical advice for each specific diabetes self-management behaviors were 4-8 times more likely to report performing the corresponding behaviors, independent of race. These results supported the ecological model with certain caveats.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Providing standard medical advice appears to lead to diabetes self-management behaviors as reported by adults across the United States. Moreover, it does not appear that race/ethnicity influenced reporting performance of the standard diabetes self-management behavior. Longitudinal studies evaluating patient-provider communication, medical advice and diabetes self-management behaviors are needed to clarify our findings.</p

Patient risk profiles and practice variation in nonadherence to antidepressants, antihypertensives and oral hypoglycemics

BACKGROUND: Many patients experience difficulties in following treatment recommendations. This study's objective is to identify nonadherence risk profiles regarding medication (antidepressants, antihypertensives, and oral hypoglycemics) from a combination of patients' socio-demographic characteristics, morbidity presented within general practice and medication characteristics. An additional objective is to explore differences in nonadherence among patients from different general practices. METHODS: Data were obtained by linkage of a Dutch general practice registration database to a dispensing registration database from the year 2001. Subjects included in the analyses were users of antidepressants (n = 4,877), antihypertensives (n = 14,219), or oral hypoglycemics (n = 2,428) and their GPs. Outcome variables were: 1) early dropout i.e., a maximum of two prescriptions and 2) refill nonadherence (in patients with 3+ prescriptions); refill adherence < 80% was considered as nonadherence. Multilevel modeling was used for analyses. RESULTS: Both early dropout and refill nonadherence were highest for antidepressants, followed by antihypertensives. Risk factors appeared medication specific and included: 1) non-western immigrants being more vulnerable for nonadherence to antihypertensives and antidepressants; 2) type of medication influencing nonadherence in both antihypertensives and antidepressants, 3) GP consultations contributing positively to adherence to antihypertensives and 4) somatic co-morbidity influencing adherence to antidepressants negatively. There was a considerable range between general practices in the proportion of patients who were nonadherent. CONCLUSION: No clear risk profiles for nonadherence could be constructed. Characteristics that are correlated with nonadherence vary across different types of medication. Moreover, both patient and prescriber influence adherence. Especially non-western immigrants need more attention with regard to nonadherence, for example by better monitoring or communication. Since it is not clear which prescriber characteristics influence adherence levels of their patients, there is need for further research into the role of the prescriber

Familiarity between patient and general practitioner does not influence the content of the consultation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Personal continuity in general practice is considered to be a prerequisite of high quality patient care based on shared knowledge and mutual understanding. Not much is known about how personal continuity is reflected in the content of GP – patient communication. We explored whether personal continuity of care influences the content of communication during the consultation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Personal continuity was defined as the degree of familiarity between GP and patient, rated by both the GP and the patient. 394 videotaped consultations between GPs and patients aged 18 years and older were analyzed. GP – patient communication was evaluated with an observation checklist, which rated the following topics of conversation: (1) medical issues, (2) psychological themes, and (3) the social environment of the patient. For each of these topics we coded whether or not it received attention, and was built upon prior knowledge. Data were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No relationship was found between GP – patient familiarity and the discussion of medical issues, psychological themes, or the social environment of the patient. But if the patient and the GP knew each other very well, the GP more often displayed prior knowledge with the topic in question. Few patient and GP characteristics were associated with differences in content of communication.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Given the relatively small sample size, we carefully conclude that familiarity between a GP and a patient does not influence the content of the communication (medical issues, psychological themes nor topics relating to the social environment). This is remarkable because we expected that familiarity would 'open up the communication' for more psychological and social themes. GPs seem to have the communication skills to put both familiar and non-familiar patients at ease enabling them to freely raise any issue they think necessary.</p

Patient adherence to medical treatment: a review of reviews

BACKGROUND: Patients' non-adherence to medical treatment remains a persistent problem. Many interventions to improve patient adherence are unsuccessful and sound theoretical foundations are lacking. Innovations in theory and practice are badly needed. A new and promising way could be to review the existing reviews of adherence to interventions and identify the underlying theories for effective interventions. That is the aim of our study. METHODS: The study is a review of 38 systematic reviews of the effectiveness of adherence interventions published between 1990 and 2005. Electronic literature searches were conducted in Medline, Psychinfo, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The scope of the study is patient adherence to medical treatment in the cure and care sector. RESULTS: Significant differences in the effectiveness of adherence interventions were found in 23 of the 38 systematic reviews. Effective interventions were found in each of four theoretical approaches to adherence interventions: technical, behavioural, educational and multi-faceted or complex interventions. Technical solutions, such as a simplification of the regimen, were often found to be effective, although that does not count for every therapeutic regimen.Overall, our results show that, firstly, there are effective adherence interventions without an explicit theoretical explanation of the operating mechanisms, for example technical solutions. Secondly, there are effective adherence interventions, which clearly stem from the behavioural theories, for example incentives and reminders. Thirdly, there are other theoretical models that seem plausible for explaining non-adherence, but not very effective in improving adherence behaviour. Fourthly, effective components within promising theories could not be identified because of the complexity of many adherence interventions and the lack of studies that explicitly compare theoretical components. CONCLUSION: There is a scarcity of comparative studies explicitly contrasting theoretical models or their components. The relative weight of these theories and the effective components in the interventions designed to improve adherence, need to be assessed in future studies. (aut.ref.

Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization

Aim: Understanding the spatial ecology of animal movements is a critical element in conserving long-lived, highly mobile marine species. Analyzing networks developed from movements of six sea turtle species reveals marine connectivity and can help prioritize conservation efforts. Location: Global. Methods: We collated telemetry data from 1235 individuals and reviewed the literature to determine our dataset's representativeness. We used the telemetry data to develop spatial networks at different scales to examine areas, connections, and their geographic arrangement. We used graph theory metrics to compare networks across regions and species and to identify the role of important areas and connections. Results: Relevant literature and citations for data used in this study had very little overlap. Network analysis showed that sampling effort influenced network structure, and the arrangement of areas and connections for most networks was complex. However, important areas and connections identified by graph theory metrics can be different than areas of high data density. For the global network, marine regions in the Mediterranean had high closeness, while links with high betweenness among marine regions in the South Atlantic were critical for maintaining connectivity. Comparisons among species-specific networks showed that functional connectivity was related to movement ecology, resulting in networks composed of different areas and links. Main conclusions: Network analysis identified the structure and functional connectivity of the sea turtles in our sample at multiple scales. These network characteristics could help guide the coordination of management strategies for wide-ranging animals throughout their geographic extent. Most networks had complex structures that can contribute to greater robustness but may be more difficult to manage changes when compared to simpler forms. Area-based conservation measures would benefit sea turtle populations when directed toward areas with high closeness dominating network function. Promoting seascape connectivity of links with high betweenness would decrease network vulnerability.Fil: Kot, Connie Y.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Åkesson, Susanne. Lund University; SueciaFil: Alfaro Shigueto, Joanna. Universidad Cientifica del Sur; Perú. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Amorocho Llanos, Diego Fernando. Research Center for Environmental Management and Development; ColombiaFil: Antonopoulou, Marina. Emirates Wildlife Society-world Wide Fund For Nature; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Balazs, George H.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Baverstock, Warren R.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Blumenthal, Janice M.. Cayman Islands Government; Islas CaimánFil: Broderick, Annette C.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Bruno, Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Pesquero; ArgentinaFil: Canbolat, Ali Fuat. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; Turquía. Ecological Research Society; TurquíaFil: Casale, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Cejudo, Daniel. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; EspañaFil: Coyne, Michael S.. Seaturtle.org; Estados UnidosFil: Curtice, Corrie. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DeLand, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DiMatteo, Andrew. CheloniData; Estados UnidosFil: Dodge, Kara. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Dunn, Daniel C.. University of Queensland; Australia. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Esteban, Nicole. Swansea University; Reino UnidoFil: Formia, Angela. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Fuentes, Mariana M. P. B.. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fujioka, Ei. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Garnier, Julie. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Godfrey, Matthew H.. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Estados UnidosFil: Godley, Brendan J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: González Carman, Victoria. Instituto National de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Harrison, Autumn Lynn. Smithsonian Institution; Estados UnidosFil: Hart, Catherine E.. Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias A.C; México. Investigacion, Capacitacion y Soluciones Ambientales y Sociales A.C; MéxicoFil: Hawkes, Lucy A.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Hays, Graeme C.. Deakin University; AustraliaFil: Hill, Nicholas. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Hochscheid, Sandra. Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn; ItaliaFil: Kaska, Yakup. Dekamer—Sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Levy, Yaniv. University Of Haifa; Israel. Israel Nature And Parks Authority; IsraelFil: Ley Quiñónez, César P.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Lockhart, Gwen G.. Virginia Aquarium Marine Science Foundation; Estados Unidos. Naval Facilities Engineering Command; Estados UnidosFil: López-Mendilaharsu, Milagros. Projeto TAMAR; BrasilFil: Luschi, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Mangel, Jeffrey C.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Margaritoulis, Dimitris. Archelon; GreciaFil: Maxwell, Sara M.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: McClellan, Catherine M.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Metcalfe, Kristian. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Mingozzi, Antonio. Università Della Calabria; ItaliaFil: Moncada, Felix G.. Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras; CubaFil: Nichols, Wallace J.. California Academy Of Sciences; Estados Unidos. Center For The Blue Economy And International Environmental Policy Program; Estados UnidosFil: Parker, Denise M.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Patel, Samir H.. Coonamessett Farm Foundation; Estados Unidos. Drexel University; Estados UnidosFil: Pilcher, Nicolas J.. Marine Research Foundation; MalasiaFil: Poulin, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Read, Andrew J.. Duke University Marine Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Rees, ALan F.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Archelon; GreciaFil: Robinson, David P.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Robinson, Nathan J.. Fundación Oceanogràfic; EspañaFil: Sandoval-Lugo, Alejandra G.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Schofield, Gail. Queen Mary University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Seminoff, Jeffrey A.. Noaa National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office; Estados UnidosFil: Seney, Erin E.. University Of Central Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Snape, Robin T. E.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Sözbilen, Dogan. Dekamer—sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale University; TurquíaFil: Tomás, Jesús. Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat I Biologia Evolutiva; EspañaFil: Varo Cruz, Nuria. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; España. Ads Biodiversidad; España. Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas; EspañaFil: Wallace, Bryan P.. University of Duke; Estados Unidos. Ecolibrium, Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wildermann, Natalie E.. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Witt, Matthew J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Zavala Norzagaray, Alan A.. Instituto politecnico nacional; MéxicoFil: Halpin, Patrick N.. University of Duke; Estados Unido

Global tracking of marine megafauna space use reveals how to achieve conservation targets

The recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) sets ambitious goals but no clear pathway for how zero loss of important biodiversity areas and halting human-induced extinction of threatened species will be achieved. We assembled a multi-taxa tracking dataset (11 million geopositions from 15,845 tracked individuals across 121 species) to provide a global assessment of space use of highly mobile marine megafauna, showing that 63% of the area that they cover is used 80% of the time as important migratory corridors or residence areas. The GBF 30% threshold (Target 3) will be insufficient for marine megafauna’s effective conservation, leaving important areas exposed to major anthropogenic threats. Coupling area protection with mitigation strategies (e.g., fishing regulation, wildlife-traffic separation) will be essential to reach international goals and conserve biodiversity.</p

Global tracking of marine megafauna space use reveals how to achieve conservation targets

The recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) sets ambitious goals but no clear pathway for how zero loss of important biodiversity areas and halting human-induced extinction of threatened species will be achieved. We assembled a multi-taxa tracking dataset (11 million geopositions from 15,845 tracked individuals across 121 species) to provide a global assessment of space use of highly mobile marine megafauna, showing that 63% of the area that they cover is used 80% of the time as important migratory corridors or residence areas. The GBF 30% threshold (Target 3) will be insufficient for marine megafauna’s effective conservation, leaving important areas exposed to major anthropogenic threats. Coupling area protection with mitigation strategies (e.g., fishing regulation, wildlife-traffic separation) will be essential to reach international goals and conserve biodiversity