Cited by 239Medication Adherence and ComplianceDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Why Don’t Diabetes Patients Achieve Recommended Risk Factor Targets? Poor Adherence versus Lack of Treatment Intensification

Open access
Schmittdiel, Julie A., Uratsu, Connie S., Karter, Andrew J., Heisler, Michele, Subramanian, Usha, Mangione, Carol M., Selby, Joe V.·2008·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Despite the availability of effective hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and hyperglycemia therapies, target levels of systolic blood pressure (SBP), LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c), and hemoglobin A1c control are often not achieved.Objective To examine the relative importance of patient medication nonadherence versus clinician lack of therapy intensification in explaining above target cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor levels.Design Cross-sectional assessment.Participants In 2005, 161,697 Kaiser Permanente Northern California adult diabetes patients were included in the study.Measurement "Above target" was defined as most recent A1c >/=7.0% for hyperglycemia, LDL-c >/=100 mg/dL for hyperlipidemia, and SBP >/=130 mmHg for hypertension. Poor adherence was defined as medication gaps for >/=20% of days covered for all medications for each condition separately. Treatment intensification was defined as an increase in the number of drug classes, increased dosage of a class, or a switch to a different class within the 3 months before or after notation of above target levels.Results Poor adherence was found in 20-23% of patients across the 3 conditions. No evidence of poor adherence with no treatment intensification was found in 30% of hyperglycemia patients, 47% of hyperlipidemia patients, and 36% of hypertension patients. Poor adherence or lack of therapy intensification was evident in 53-68% of patients above target levels across conditions.Conclusions Both nonadherence and lack of treatment intensification occur frequently in patients above target for CVD risk factor levels; however, lack of therapy intensification was somewhat more common. Quality improvement efforts should focus on these modifiable barriers to CVD risk factor control.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-008-0554-8

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A large proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin do not achieve target HbA1c <7.0%.

    “Despite significant expansion on our insulin portfolio during the past decade, a large proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin do not achieve target HbA1c <7.0%.4,6,25”

    From Efficacy of a Smart Insulin Pen Cap for the Management of Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Results (page unavailable) report that 53% of patients not using insulin at baseline had an above-target A1c at some point in 2005. The Methods define above target as A1c ≥7.0%, but the Data Analyses section says the hyperglycemia analysis was limited to patients not on insulin at baseline. The paper therefore supports the general point about missed A1c targets, not the claim specifically about patients receiving basal insulin. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Borzecki AM, Wong AT, Hickey EC, Ash AS, Berlowitz DR. Hyperten- sion control: how well are we doing? Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2705-11.
  2. Vittinghoff E, Shlipak MG, Varosey PD, et al. Risk factors and secondary prevention in women with heart disease: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin replacement study. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138:81-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmittdiel, J. A., Uratsu, C. S., Karter, A. J., Heisler, M., Subramanian, U., Mangione, C. M., & Selby, J. V.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Schmittdiel, Julie A.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2008-03-04
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
588-594
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2075557567
Cited by
239
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 23
FWCI
15.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • U.S. Public Health Service (U58/CCU923527-04-1)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK065664)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K12HD052163, R01HD046113)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, medication non-adherence, treatment intensification, cardiovascular risk factors, glycemic control, HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, hypertension, systolic blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, medication gaps, Kaiser Permanente
MeSH terms
Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Hypolipidemic Agents, California, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperlipidemias, Hypertension, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Managed Care Programs, Medical Audit, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Risk Factors, Treatment Refusal, Guideline Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review