Cited by 44Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

The impact of structured blood glucose testing on attitudes toward self-management among poorly controlled, insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

Fisher, Lawrence, Polonsky, William H., Parkin, Christopher G., Jelsovsky, Zhihong, Petersen, Bettina, Wagner, Robin S.·2012·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.12.016

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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