Skip to main content

Table 3 The effect of structured personal care on behavioral, clinical, process of care and biochemical variables according to socio-demographic group

From: Socio-demographic determinants and effect of structured personal diabetes care: a 19-year follow-up of the randomized controlled study diabetes Care in General Practice (DCGP)

 

Significance (p-value)a of the modification of the intervention effect by the various socio-demographic variables

Educational level:

Basic vs. higher

Residence:

Rural vs. urban

Employment:

Out of labor market vs. in labor market

Civil status:

Single vs. cohabiting

Patient attitudesb

    

Altered habits after diagnosis

0.22

0.08

0.50

0.33

Not full diabetes diet

0.53

0.74

0.78

0.45

Performs home blood/urinary glucose monitoring

0.17

0.89

0.94

0.88

For the patient in question the GP’s opinionb

    

Patient’s motivation; good or very good for best possible

control and treatment over past year,

0.34

0.07

0.19

0.80

Clinical

    

Body mass index

0.29

0.50

0.15

0.65

Systolic blood pressure

0.47

0.23

0.71

0.54

Biochemical

    

Hemoglobin A1c

0.48

0.31

0.91

0.97

Total cholesterol

0.05(↓)

0.67

0.83

0.79

Serum creatinine

0.42

0.05 (↓)

0.69

0.22

Micro- or proteinuriac

0.81

0.55

0.47

0.92

Behavioralb

    

Sedentary (leisure time) physical activity

0.90

0.20

0.57

0.67

Current smoking

0.44

0.41

0.56

0.59

Process of careb

    

Consultations/year

0.93

0.26

0.86

0.53

Diabetes-related consultations/year

0.91

0.18

0.56

0.04 (↑)

Ever treated at diabetic clinic

0.95

0.17

0.87

0.32

Glucose-lowering drugsb

0.26

0.96

0.60

0.33

Antihypertensive drugsb

0.33

0.18

0.55

0.98

Lipid-lowering drugsb

0.82

0.04 (↓)

0.40

0.40

  1. aP-value from a test whether the effect of the intervention differs between socio-demographic groups (e.g. patients with basic school only vs higher education), adjusted for age, sex and diabetes duration. Clustering with general practice is accounted for by the use of generalized estimating equations. Arrows (↓) indicate the direction of the effect modification for cases where p < 0.05, e.g. the intervention lowered serum creatinine more in patients living in rural areas than in patients living in urban areas. bData from questionnaires to patients and their general practitioners. cProteinuria > =15 mg/L