↓ Skip to main content

Diabetes Management and Healthcare Resource Use When Intensifying from Basal Insulin to Basal-Bolus: A Survey of Type 2 Diabetes Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Diabetes Management and Healthcare Resource Use When Intensifying from Basal Insulin to Basal-Bolus: A Survey of Type 2 Diabetes Patients
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13300-018-0487-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn M. Pfeiffer, Amaury Basse, Xin Ying Lee, Laura Tesler Waldman

Abstract

Currently, there is limited knowledge about the experiences and challenges type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients face when intensifying from basal insulin to more complex regimens. The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of adults with T2D who have been intensified to a basal-bolus insulin regimen, including challenges related to intensification, medication adherence issues, non-persistence, and healthcare resource use related to intensification. A web-based survey of adults diagnosed with T2D and currently treated with basal insulin was conducted in the UK and the USA. The analysis sample was restricted to respondents with current/recent basal-bolus treatment (n = 398) and divided into three analysis groups: (1) "basal-bolus adherent" (current basal-bolus treatment with at least 90% adherence); (2) "basal-bolus non-adherent" (current basal-bolus treatment with less than 80% adherence); and (3) "stopped bolus" (discontinued bolus in past 12 months). Basal-bolus non-adherent respondents reported fewer discussions with their healthcare providers (HCPs) before starting bolus and more frequent difficulties with and worries about taking bolus insulin compared to basal-bolus adherent and stopped bolus groups. The most frequently reported reasons for discontinuing bolus were related to the complicated nature of regimen, including too complicated to calculate bolus doses (25.7%), too complicated to regulate food in relation to bolus (20.7%), and too complicated to keep track of taking two different insulins (18.6%). Respondents who stopped bolus reported more frequent HCP visits related to diabetes compared to the basal-bolus adherent and basal-bolus non-adherent groups. Results suggest that the complicated nature of basal-bolus therapy contributes to the difficulties that T2D patients have with the regimen and to non-persistence. Physician and patient education may help patients address these treatment challenges to improve basal-bolus adherence and persistence, which could reduce healthcare resource use and costs. Less complex regimens may be appropriate for patients with persistent treatment difficulties. Novo Nordisk A/S.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Lecturer 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Unspecified 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Unspecified 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,888,076
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#524
of 1,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,381
of 333,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.