Diabetes consultation versus diabetes education in patients with poor glycaemic control: A telemedicine intervention study

Abstract

Introduction The prevalence of diabetes is increasing around the world, especially in populations with limited health service resources. Diabetes is associated with increased mortality and cost. Therefore, we investigated the impact of increasing access to diabetes care through telemedicine. Methods Five rural communities were connected via videoconference. Patients received diabetes consultation (DC) or diabetes self-management education (DSME). DC was performed by an endocrinologist, while DSME was delivered by a certified diabetes educator. Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP) and lipid profile were evaluated as outcome measures. Results Sixty-nine subjects (70% females, 91% Caucasians) were studied, with 33 receiving DC and 36 receiving DSME. Patients were aged 56.7 ± 9.4 and 56.5 ± 6.7 years, respectively ( p > 0.5), and had had diabetes for 11.4 ± 10.1 and 11.7 ± 9.2 years, respectively ( p > 0.5). Both DC and DSME reduced HbA1c equally: DC at baseline 9.3 ± 1.3% compared to at 12 months 7.2 ± 0.9% ( p = 0.0002), and DSME at baseline 9.8 ± 1.6% compared to at 12 months 8.3 ± 1.9% ( p = 0.009). There was no difference in HbA1c between DC and DSME at baseline and at 12 months ( p > 0.1). On the average, BP and lipids were equally controlled in DC and DSME at six months: total cholesterol 178.3 ± 50.5 mg/dL versus 185.9 ± 57.3 mg/dL, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 91.4 ± 36.1 mg/dL versus 91.5 ± 50.2 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 46.2 ± 11.0 mg/dL versus 43.5 ± 10.8 mg/dL, systolic BP 136.8 ± 23.6 mmHg versus 131.9 ± 22.3 mmHg, diastolic BP 72.0 ± 13.2 mmHg versus 77.7 ± 11.3 mmHg ( p > 0.1). All subjects found DC and DSME cost effective, while 97% reported better diabetes control. Discussion In patients with long-standing uncontrolled diabetes who lived in rural communities with high diabetes-related mortality rates, DC or DSME delivered by videoconference improved glycemic control. No difference was found between the two interventions.