The impact of structured blood glucose testing on attitudes toward self-management among poorly controlled, insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes
Abstract
Introduction Patients with T2DM often view self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) as burdensome and pointless, which may affect their broader attitudes toward diabetes management. We examined how a structured SMBG protocol influenced diabetes self-efficacy and autonomous motivation over time, and linked these to changes in glycemic control.Materials and methods The Structured Testing Program (STeP) is a 12-month, two-arm, cluster-randomized trial that assessed the efficacy of structured SMBG in 483 insulin-naïve T2DM patients. Measures included: Confidence in Diabetes Self-Care for Type 2 patients (CIDS-T2), Diabetes-related Autonomous Motivation (DRAM), self-management behaviors and HbA1c.Results Intent-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses showed significant increases in CIDS-T2 scores over time (main effects p<0.0001). PP analysis showed significant between-group differences (p<0.05), with adherent STG patients displaying greater CIDS-T2 improvement than ACG patients. PP analyses showed main and between-group effects in DRAM with similar findings. Changes in CIDS-T2 were related to HbA1c changes over time; no self-management variable mediated this relationship. CIDS-T2 and HbA1c displayed a significant time-concordant relationship.Discussion Structured SMBG leads to significant increases in self-confidence and autonomous motivation associated with diabetes self-management. Changes in self-confidence are linked to changes in glycemic control and share a time-concordant relationship.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Per protocol analysis of the STeP study showed a significant between-group difference favoring sSMBG for general emotional well-being, regimen-related diabetes distress, and diabetes-specific self-efficacy.
“per protocol analysis of the STeP study showed a significant between-group difference, favoring sSMBG, for general emotional well-being (WHO-5), regimen-related diabetes distress (DDS subscale), and diabetes-specific self-efficacy (CIDS) (61, 62, 64).”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Fisher, L., Polonsky, W. H., Parkin, C. G., Jelsovsky, Z., Petersen, B., & Wagner, R. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Parkin, Christopher G.
- Venue
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-155
- ISSN
- 0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097595970
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, self-monitoring of blood glucose, diabetes self-management, diabetes self-efficacy, autonomous motivation, glycemic control, HbA1c, insulin-naive patients, uncontrolled diabetes
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Self Care, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Disease Management
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