The purpose of this study is to examine outcomes in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who received diabetes counseling and education (C/E) services compared with those who did not.
Methods
A matched, retrospective cohort study of 17 483 C/E recipients and 17 470 non-C/E controls was followed for up to 12 months. Outcomes included glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin A1C levels <7.0%), hypoglycemic events, and health care utilization and costs.
Results
Compared with the non-C/E group, patients in the C/E group had significantly lower A1C (7.7% vs 7.2%) and were more likely to achieve glycemic control at 6 months’ follow-up; they were also more likely to have a hypoglycemic event. During the 1-year period following the index date, C/E recipients had more inpatient visits (0.21 vs 0.20 visits per patient) and ambulatory visits (21.5 vs 18.6 visits per patient) compared with non-C/E controls. The increased use of health care services in the C/E groups was associated with $2388 higher annual overall costs and $827 higher diabetes-related costs.
Conclusions
Diabetes C/E is associated with improved glycemic control, albeit with a slight increase in the risk of hypoglycemia. C/E was associated with higher health care costs across 12 months. Further analyses are needed to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of diabetes counseling and education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HarrisMIEastmanRCCowieCCFlegalKMEberhardtMS. Racial and ethnic differences in glycemic control of adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:403-408.
2.
DavidsonJKoroCArondekarBLeeBHFedderD. A retrospective analysis of the fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin and pharmacotherapy change patterns among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Clin Ther. 2008;30:287-293.
3.
FowlerGCVasudevanDA. Type 2 diabetes mellitus: managing hemoglobin A1c and beyond. South Med J. 2010;103:911-916.
4.
IDF Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Global guideline for type 2 diabetes: recommendations for standard, comprehensive, and minimal care. Diabet Med. 2006;23:579-593.
5.
FunnellMMBrownTLChildsBP. National standards for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(suppl 1):S89-S96.
6.
Fleury-MilfortE. Practical strategies to improve treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008;20:295-304.
7.
FisherEBThorpeCTDevellisBMDevellisRF. Healthy coping, negative emotions, and diabetes management: a systematic review and appraisal. Diabetes Educ. 2007;33:1080-1103.
8.
VivianEM. The pharmacist’s role in maintaining adherence to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Consult Pharm. 2007;22:320-332.
9.
DuncanIAhmedTLiQE. Assessing the value of the diabetes educator. Diabetes Educ. 2011;37:638-657.
10.
GillettMDallossoHMDixonS. Delivering the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ. 2010;341:c4093.
11.
DeakinTAMcShaneCECadeJEWilliamsR. Group based training for self-management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;18: CD003417.
12.
GaryTLGenkingerJMGuallarEPeyrotMBrancatiFL. Meta-analysis of randomized educational and behavioral interventions in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2003;29:488-501.
13.
NorrisSLLauJSmithSJSchmidCHEngelgauMM. Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25:1159-1171.
14.
American Association of Diabetes Educators. AADE guidelines for the practice of diabetes self-management education and training (DSME/T). Diabetes Educ. 2009;35:85S-107S.
15.
RosenbaumPRRubinDB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
16.
BloughDKMaddenCWHornbrookMC. Modeling risk using generalized linear models. J Health Econ. 1999;18:153-171.
17.
WagnerEHSanduNNewtonKMMcCullochDKRamseySDGrothausLC. Effect of improved glycemic control on health care costs and utilization. JAMA. 2001;285:182-189.
American Diabetes Association. Third-party reimbursement for diabetes care, self-management education, and supplies. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(suppl 1):S99-S100.
20.
DuncanIBirkmeyerCCoughlinSLiQESherrDBorenS. Assessing the value of diabetes education. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35:752-760.
21.
RobbinsJMThatcherGEWebbDAValdmanisVG. Nutritionist visits, diabetes classes, and hospitalization rates and charges: the Urban Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(4): 655-660.
22.
LovemanEFramptonGKCleggAJ. The clinical effectiveness of diabetes education models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:1-116.
23.
AllenNAFainJABraunBChipkinSR. Continuous glucose monitoring counseling improves physical activity behaviors of individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;80:371-379.
24.
BuraniJLongoPJ. Low-glycemic index carbohydrates an effective behavioral change for glycemic control and weight management in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2006;32:78-88.
25.
GallegosECOvalle-BerumenFGomez-MezaMV. Metabolic control of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus through education and counseling. J Nurs Schol. 2006;38:344-351.
AbsetzPValveROldenburgB. Type 2 diabetes prevention in the “real world”: one-year results of the GOAL implementation trial. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:2465-2470.
28.
DukeSAColagiuriSColagiuriR. Individual patient education for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):CD005268.
29.
Samuel-HodgeCDKeyserlingTCFranceR. A church-based diabetes self-management education program for African Americans with type 2 diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis [serial online], July2006. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jul/05_0085.htm. Accessed April 15, 2013.
30.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352:837-853.
31.
WienerRSWienerDCLarsonRJ. Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:933-944.
32.
ADVANCE Collaborative Group; PatelAMacMahonSChalmersJ. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2560-2572.
33.
NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators; FinferSChittockDRSuSY. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1283-1297.
34.
FravelMAMcDanelDLRossMBMooresKGStarryMJ. Special considerations for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2011;68:500-509.
