scholarly journals Blood Glucose Monitoring is Associated with Better Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes: A Database Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen H. Murata ◽  
William C. Duckworth ◽  
Jayendra H. Shah ◽  
Christopher S. Wendel ◽  
M. Jane Mohler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Database Study

941-P: Frequency of Blood Glucose Monitoring in Relation to Medical Cost and Glycemic Control in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Diabetes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 941-P
Author(s):  
LEI ZHANG ◽  
YAN GU ◽  
YUXIU YANG ◽  
NA WANG ◽  
WEIGUO GAO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Medical Cost ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring

Empowerment and Social Support as Predictors of Self-Care Behaviors and Glycemic Control in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamdiye Arda Sürücü ◽  
Dilek Büyükkaya Besen ◽  
Elif Yeter Erbil
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Self Care ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Foot Care

This study investigated empowerment, social support, and diabetes-related characteristics as predictors of self-care behaviors and glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes in Turkey. Descriptive cross-sectional and relational research designs were used in this study. The study was carried out with a cohort of 220 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Linear regression analysis revealed that patient empowerment was a statistically significant predictor of diet (β = .30; p < .001), exercise (β = .19; p = .003), blood glucose monitoring (β = .27; p < .001), foot care (β = .27; p < .001), and A1c (β = −.19; p = .004). Social support was a statistically significant predictor of diet (β = .24; p < .001), exercise (β = .26; p < .001), blood glucose monitoring (β = .16; p = .011), and foot care (β = .19; p = .003). These results indicate that social support and empowerment are important for nurses to consider when planning interventions that increase the self-care behavior of individuals with type 2 diabetes and for improving glycemic control.

scholarly journals Frequency of Blood Glucose Monitoring in Relation to Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Diabetes Care ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 245-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Blonde ◽  
B. H. Ginsberg ◽  
S. Horn ◽  
I. B. Hirsch ◽  
B. James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring

scholarly journals Intensified Blood Glucose Monitoring Improves Glycemic Control in Stable, Insulin-Treated Veterans With Type 2 Diabetes: The Diabetes Outcomes in Veterans Study (DOVES)

Diabetes Care ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1759-1763 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. H. Murata ◽  
J. H. Shah ◽  
R. M. Hoffman ◽  
C. S. Wendel ◽  
K. D. Adam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Diabetes Outcomes

scholarly journals Flash glucose monitoring helps achieve better glycemic control than conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e001115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eri Wada ◽  
Takeshi Onoue ◽  
Tomoko Kobayashi ◽  
Tomoko Handa ◽  
Ayaka Hayase ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Analysis Of Covariance ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Flash Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Baseline Values ◽  
The Mean

IntroductionThe present study aimed to evaluate the effects of flash glucose monitoring (FGM) and conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on glycemic control in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.Research design and methodsIn this 24-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized (1:1), parallel-group study, patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes at five hospitals in Japan were randomly assigned to the FGM (n=49) or SMBG (n=51) groups and were provided each device for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, and was compared using analysis of covariance model that included baseline values and group as covariates.ResultsForty-eight participants in the FGM group and 45 in the SMBG group completed the study. The mean HbA1c levels were 7.83% (62.1 mmol/mol) in the FGM group and 7.84% (62.2 mmol/mol) in the SMBG group at baseline, and the values were reduced in both FGM (−0.43% (−4.7 mmol/mol), p<0.001) and SMBG groups (−0.30% (−3.3 mmol/mol), p=0.001) at 12 weeks. On the other hand, HbA1c was significantly decreased from baseline values in the FGM group, but not in the SMBG group at 24 weeks (FGM: −0.46% (−5.0 mmol/mol), p<0.001; SMBG: −0.17% (−1.8 mmol/mol), p=0.124); a significant between-group difference was also observed (difference −0.29% (−3.2 mmol/mol), p=0.022). Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score was significantly improved, and the mean glucose levels, SD of glucose, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions and time in hyperglycemia were significantly decreased in the FGM group compared with the SMBG group.ConclusionsGlycemic control was better with FGM than with SMBG after cessation of glucose monitoring in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.Trial registration numberUMIN000026452, jRCTs041180082.

Can Blood Glucose Monitoring be Simplified/Modified in Order to Achieve Better Diabetes Management—Perspectives for the Future

2010 ◽  
Vol 06 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Robert M Cuddihy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Blood Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Major Advance ◽  
Oral Agents

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with reflectance meters was heralded as a major advance in the management of diabetes and has been available to individuals with diabetes for home use since the late 1970s. This tool was put to use in the landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), which revolutionized care for individuals with type 1 diabetes, enabling these individuals to intensify their glucose control. SMBG has similar benefit in individuals with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin therapy. Its use in other individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with oral agents or non-insulin therapies is less clear. While SMBG is a potentially powerful tool to aid in the daily management of diabetes, to be used effectively, SMBG must be optimized to ensure the information derived from it can be acted on to modify physical activity, dietary intake, or medications to improve glycemic control. Recently, studies looking at this population have called into question the utility of SMBG in the management of individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with non-insulin therapies. However, these studies are lacking in the specifics of how such information was used to modify therapies. In addition to this, the lack of a universally accepted output for SMBG data significantly impedes its uptake and appropriate use by healthcare providers and patients. To maximize the effectiveness of SMBG, both patients and providers need to have a clear understanding of when and how to use SMBG data and, most importantly, act upon the data to effect a change in their diabetes management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document