English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aims: Home glucose testing and reflection on patterns are important elements of type 1 diabetes self-management. We hypothesised that patients who demonstrated evidence of self-testing by bringing a record book (capillary blood glucose monitoring diary) to clinic would have better glycaemic control than patients with a glucometer alone, or neither record book nor glucometer. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 233 consecutive type 1 diabetes patients using basal-bolus insulin. Exclusion criteria were diagnosis of type 1 diabetes within the previous year, current pregnancy, or prior inclusion in this study. We recorded the presence or absence of a record book or glucometer at the clinic, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and previous structured education attendance. Results: Of 233 patients, 90 brought a record book, 61 brought a glucometer and 82 brought neither. Mean HbA1c did not differ between patients with a record book (63 ± 2 mmol/mol [7.9 ± 0.2%]) or glucometer (63 ± 2 mmol/mol [7.9 ± 0.2%]), but was higher in those with neither (77 ± 2 mmol/mol [9.2±0.2%]; p<0.001). Patients bringing a record book were older on average than those with a glucometer or neither (49.6 ± 1.7 vs. 41.2 ± 1.7 vs. 40.6 ± 1.4 years; p<0.001) and had longer mean duration of diabetes (27.9 ± 2.0 vs. 19.2 ± 1.7 vs. 18.7 ± 1.6 years; p<0.001). Prior structured education did not predict the presence of a record book or glucometer in the clinic. Conclusions: Evidence of self-testing at clinic review, either as a record book or glucometer, was associated with improved control compared with those with neither. HbA1c did not differ between patients bringing a record book or glucometer. Self-reflection on glucose results is important for type 1 diabetes self-management, irrespective of the recording method used.

Evidence of patient self-testing at clinic review: association with glycaemic control