METHODS: An online/face-to-face, questionnaire-based survey of respiratory specialists and primary care physicians from eight Asian countries/region was carried out. The survey explored asthma control, inhaler selection, technique and use; physician-patient communications and asthma education. Inclusion criteria were >50% of practice time spent on direct patient care; and treated >30 patients with asthma per month, of which >60% were aged >12 years.
RESULTS: REALISE Asia (Phase 2) involved 375 physicians with average 15.9(±6.8) years of clinical experience. 89.1% of physicians reporting use of guidelines estimated that 53.2% of their patients have well-controlled (GINA-defined) asthma. Top consideration for inhaler choice was asthma severity (82.4%) and lowest, socio-economic status (32.5%). Then 54.7% of physicians checked their patients' inhaler techniques during consultations but 28.2(±19.1)% of patients were using their inhalers incorrectly; 21.1-57.9% of physicians could spot improper inhaler techniques in video demonstrations. And 79.6% of physicians believed combination inhalers could increase adherence because of convenience (53.7%), efficacy (52.7%) and usability (18.9%). Initial and follow-up consultations took 16.8(±8.4) and 9.2(±5.3) minutes, respectively. Most (85.1%) physicians used verbal conversations and least (24.5%), video demonstrations of inhaler use; 56.8% agreed that patient attitudes influenced their treatment approach.
CONCLUSION: Physicians and patients have different views of 'well-controlled' asthma. Although physicians informed patients about asthma and inhaler usage, they overestimated actual usage and patients' knowledge was sub-optimal. Physician-patient interactions can be augmented with understanding of patient attitudes, visual aids and ancillary support to perform physical demonstrations to improve treatment outcomes.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, Type 2 diabetic patients who were on insulin therapy attending health clinics were randomly selected and interviewed using a validated questionnaire. Binary logistic regression analysis was applied.
RESULTS: Out of 304 respondents, only 11.5% of them brought their used sharps to be disposed at health care facilities. Previous advice on sharp disposal from health care providers, knowledge score, and duration of diabetes were significant contributing factors for sharp waste disposal at health care facilities: (Adj. OR 6.31; 95% CI: 2.63, 15.12; p < 0.001), (Adj. OR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.08; p < 0.001), and (Adj. OR 2.51; 95% CI: 1.06, 5.93; p = 0.036), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Continuous education and a locally adapted safe sharp disposal option must be available to increase awareness and facilitate diabetic patients adopting proper sharp disposal behavior.
METHODS: This is a controlled, intervention based study. It was run on three phases: before, during, and after Ramadan on 262 type 2 diabetes patients. The intervention group (n = 140) received RFEP on medications doses & timing adjustment before and after Ramadan, while the control group (n = 122) received standard care.
RESULTS: The dose of insulin glargine was reduced from 42.51 ± 22.16 at the baseline to 40.11 ± 18.51-units during Ramadan (p = 0.002) in the intervention group while it remained the same in the control group before Ramadan and during Ramadan (38.51 ± 18.63 and 38.14 ± 18.46, P = 0.428, respectively). The hypoglycemia score was 14.2 ± (8.5) pre-Ramadan in the intervention and reduced to 6.36 ± 6.17 during Ramadan (p patients, and it can be a useful tool to achieve better outcomes; less hypoglycemia and safe fasting among T2D patients during Ramadan.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CMI on medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes in Qatar.
METHODS: We developed and customised CMI for all the anti-diabetic medications used in Qatar. A randomised controlled trial in which the intervention group patients (n = 66) received the customised CMI with usual care, while the control group patients (n = 74) received usual care only, was conducted. Self-reported medication adherence and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) were the primary outcome measures. Glycaemic control and medication adherence parameters were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months in both groups. Medication adherence was measured using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8).
RESULTS: Although the addition of CMI resulted in better glycaemic control, this did not reach statistical significance, possibly because of the short-term follow-up. The median MMAS-8 score improved from baseline (6.6 [IQR = 1.5]) to 6-month follow-up (7.0 [IQR = 1.00]) in the intervention group. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference between the intervention and the control groups in terms of MMAS-8 score at the third visit (7.0 [IQR = 1.0]) vs 6.5 (IQR = 1.25; P-value = .010).
CONCLUSION: CMI for anti-diabetic medications when added to usual care has the potential to improve medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, providing better health communication and CMI to patients with diabetes is recommended.