4.3 Article

Glycemic control among primary care patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Gaza Strip, Palestine

Journal

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2042018817742070

Keywords

Gaza Strip; glycemic control; HbA1c; medication adherence; type 2 diabetes mellitus

Funding

  1. Palestinian Medical Relief Society [BMZ-2014.1819.3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: In this study, we aimed to assess the level of good glycemic control, to determine association between adherence to antidiabetic medications and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and to examine factors influencing good glycemic control. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional design was employed among 369 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from four Ministry of Health health centers in 2016. A sample of 3 ml blood was taken to measure the HbA1c, and patients were asked to fill out a pretested questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions, to identify independent factors associated with good glycemic control, were conducted using SPSS software version 22 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). Results: Mean [standard deviation (SD)] of HbA1c was 8.97 (2.02) and one fifth of patients had good glycemic control (HbA1c 7%). Factors associated with good glycemic control were: older age [odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.933-0.988), high medication adherence (OR: 2.757, 95% CI: 1.308-4.693), and better health literacy (OR= 2.124, 95% CI: 1.917-4.921). Duration of diabetes mellitus (DM > 7 years) was inversely related to good glycemic control (OR = 2.255, 95% CI: 1.189-4.276). Conclusion: Our study showed that glycemic control was suboptimal, and factors associated with that were: older age, high medication adherence, and better health literacy. Knowledge of these factors could be an entry toward helping patients and targeting interventions to improve glycemic control and prevent diabetes-related complications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available