In many African countries, including South Africa, much attention has been centred on the management of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis epidemics. However, there is growing awareness in South Africa that life-style related non-communicable conditions, such as diabetes and obesity, represent an important health priority (Pirie, 2005:42). The general objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment of diabetic patients in clinics on primary healthcare level and to determine what contributions can be made in the prevention of diabetic complications. The research method consisted out of the selection of the study population, data collection (questionnaire) and the data analysis. There was no structural way of deciding which patients would be selected to be interviewed. As the patients arrived for their appointments the interviewer was informed. No patient was forced to participate in this study and after they agreed to the interview, they signed a consent form that releases the University of any liability that may occur and to give their permission for the interview. The questionnaire was compiled which covered all the aspects of diabetes. This included diagnostic data, life-style, well-being, compliance and monitoring. The researcher completed the questionnaires whilst interviewing the patients. The data obtained from the questionnaires were statistically analysed by using the Statistical Analysis System, SAS 9.1. Effect size, which was given by the Phi coefficient, was used as a descriptive statistic. In this particular study population, the majority of patients were classified as type 2 diabetics. This can be viewed in table 4.8 where 62.14% of the total study population was classified as group B, which means that these patients use oral glucose lowering drugs to control their disease. A further 33.98% of the population was classified as group C diabetics, which means that these patients need oral glucose lowering drugs as well as exogenous insulin to maintain a healthy life. The latter group obviously consists of patients whose diabetic status was not under control in the past, thus the need for the insulin. This clearly shows that these patients have not been informed about how they can manage the disease by dietary modification and lifestyle interventions. Lifestyle, socio-economic and education played a major role in the development of this disease in these patients. The weight status of the study population was determined and can be viewed in table 4.15. Only 20.39% of them were of normal weight with a body mass index (BMI) ranging between 18.5 - 24.9 kg/m2. 39.81% of them were overweight with their BMI ranging between 25 - 29.9 kg/m2 and the remaining 39.81% of the study population were classified as obese with their BMI's above 30 kg/m2. The majority (an estimated 80%) of the study population were above optimal weight. This may cause the development of chronic complications, such as retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy. The socio-economic status of the study population was relatively poor because of unemployment. Although 90.07% of them said they had no difficulty to follow their diet (table 4.56) almost half of the patients said they had some difficulty to get the correct food for their specific needs (table 4.53). The first may be because they are still eating they way they used to with no modifications and the latter may be because of their financial status. Not being able to find work has a major effect on their lives. They cannot afford to buy foods suitable for their needs. As previously stated, patient education is fundamental in the managing and controlling diabetes. When these patients were asked whether they know what diabetes is, and what the complications of the disease might hold, most of them answered that it means they have 'sugar', and cannot eat sugary foods any more. This clearly indicates that they did not have a complete knowledge of their disease. After having explained to them in uncomplicated terms what the disease implicates, many of them said it had not been not explained to them previously and that they now understood it better. It was concluded that the majority of the studied population were under a false impression of what diabetes implied. This is partly due to the lack of time the clinic staffs have to spend with each patient, educating them about the disease. One aspect that was most obvious during this study was the fact that an estimated 20% of all patients studied had their own blood glucose monitor (table 4.80). This is somewhat concerning because to have optimal control over one's blood glucose levels, one needs to has a blood glucose monitor for regular monitoring. An estimated 70% of the studied population measures their blood glucose only once a month when they attend the clinic for their monthly visit (table 4.81). This is not nearly enough to ensure optimal control. The average blood glucose levels were calculated and described in section 4.7. Even with the minimal measurement, about 50% of these patients' blood glucose levels were fairly under control with an average of 6-9mmol/L (table 4.88). But the other estimated 50% of the population were not controlled with averages of either below 5mmol/L or above 9mmol/L. This is concerning because the possibility that these uncontrolled cases may develop chronic complications, might be unavoidable unless they start taking control of their lives. And for this to happen, these patients need all the possible education from qualified health care providers and the support of their families. Certain recommendations and restrictions were formulated and discussed. / Thesis (M.Pharm. (Pharmacy Practice))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

In many African countries, including South Africa, much attention has been centred on the management of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis epidemics. However, there is growing awareness in South Africa that life-style related non-communicable conditions, such as diabetes and obesity, represent an important health priority (Pirie, 2005:42). The general objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment of diabetic patients in clinics on primary healthcare level and to determine what contributions can be made in the prevention of diabetic complications. The research method consisted out of the selection of the study population, data collection (questionnaire) and the data analysis. There was no structural way of deciding which patients would be selected to be interviewed. As the patients arrived for their appointments the interviewer was informed. No patient was forced to participate in this study and after they agreed to the interview, they signed a consent form that releases the University of any liability that may occur and to give their permission for the interview. The questionnaire was compiled which covered all the aspects of diabetes. This included diagnostic data, life-style, well-being, compliance and monitoring. The researcher completed the questionnaires whilst interviewing the patients. The data obtained from the questionnaires were statistically analysed by using the Statistical Analysis System, SAS 9.1. Effect size, which was given by the Phi coefficient, was used as a descriptive statistic. In this particular study population, the majority of patients were classified as type 2 diabetics. This can be viewed in table 4.8 where 62.14% of the total study population was classified as group B, which means that these patients use oral glucose lowering drugs to control their disease. A further 33.98% of the population was classified as group C diabetics, which means that these patients need oral glucose lowering drugs as well as exogenous insulin to maintain a healthy life. The latter group obviously consists of patients whose diabetic status was not under control in the past, thus the need for the insulin. This clearly shows that these patients have not been informed about how they can manage the disease by dietary modification and lifestyle interventions. Lifestyle, socio-economic and education played a major role in the development of this disease in these patients. The weight status of the study population was determined and can be viewed in table 4.15. Only 20.39% of them were of normal weight with a body mass index (BMI) ranging between 18.5 - 24.9 kg/m2. 39.81% of them were overweight with their BMI ranging between 25 - 29.9 kg/m2 and the remaining 39.81% of the study population were classified as obese with their BMI's above 30 kg/m2. The majority (an estimated 80%) of the study population were above optimal weight. This may cause the development of chronic complications, such as retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy. The socio-economic status of the study population was relatively poor because of unemployment. Although 90.07% of them said they had no difficulty to follow their diet (table 4.56) almost half of the patients said they had some difficulty to get the correct food for their specific needs (table 4.53). The first may be because they are still eating they way they used to with no modifications and the latter may be because of their financial status. Not being able to find work has a major effect on their lives. They cannot afford to buy foods suitable for their needs. As previously stated, patient education is fundamental in the managing and controlling diabetes. When these patients were asked whether they know what diabetes is, and what the complications of the disease might hold, most of them answered that it means they have 'sugar', and cannot eat sugary foods any more. This clearly indicates that they did not have a complete knowledge of their disease. After having explained to them in uncomplicated terms what the disease implicates, many of them said it had not been not explained to them previously and that they now understood it better. It was concluded that the majority of the studied population were under a false impression of what diabetes implied. This is partly due to the lack of time the clinic staffs have to spend with each patient, educating them about the disease. One aspect that was most obvious during this study was the fact that an estimated 20% of all patients studied had their own blood glucose monitor (table 4.80). This is somewhat concerning because to have optimal control over one's blood glucose levels, one needs to has a blood glucose monitor for regular monitoring. An estimated 70% of the studied population measures their blood glucose only once a month when they attend the clinic for their monthly visit (table 4.81). This is not nearly enough to ensure optimal control. The average blood glucose levels were calculated and described in section 4.7. Even with the minimal measurement, about 50% of these patients' blood glucose levels were fairly under control with an average of 6-9mmol/L (table 4.88). But the other estimated 50% of the population were not controlled with averages of either below 5mmol/L or above 9mmol/L. This is concerning because the possibility that these uncontrolled cases may develop chronic complications, might be unavoidable unless they start taking control of their lives. And for this to happen, these patients need all the possible education from qualified health care providers and the support of their families. Certain recommendations and restrictions were formulated and discussed. / Thesis (M.Pharm. (Pharmacy Practice))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

Thesis (doctoral)--Lund University, 1995. / Added t.p. with thesis statement inserted.

INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a lifelong disease that requires regular injection of insulin and blood glucose (BG) monitoring. Many diabetes technologies have been created to assist in the management of T1D, including insulin pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM). These systems have been shown to decrease treatment distress and improve glycemic control. However, the uptake of these systems is low due to both cost and other barriers such as discomfort of wear or psychosocial aspects. METHODS: A survey was administered to clinicians of people with diabetes to better understand their perception of patient related barriers to device use. This analysis compares two clusters of clinicians, named "Cautious" and "Ready" based on their readiness to promote CGM use in their patients. Both have positive attitudes towards technology, but the Cautious cluster perceives much higher barriers to device use in their patients than the Ready cluster. In this analysis, the individual barriers, prerequisites to CGM use, confidence in addressing barriers, and clinic staff resources are compared between clusters using independent means t-tests and Pearson chi-square analyses. RESULTS: Results indicate that the confidence in addressing the clinician-reported number 1 rated barrier to CGM use was significantly lower in the Cautious cluster. Also, most individual barriers were perceived significantly more heavily by clinicians in the Cautious cluster. No significant difference was found in prerequisites to CGM use or clinic staff resources between the clusters. DISCUSSION: Because no differences were found in clinician reported prerequisites to CGM use between clusters, it does not seem that the clinicians in the Cautious cluster expect more from their patients before using this technology. One possible explanation would be a clinical deficiency. However, since there was no difference in clinic staff resources, it is unlikely that the availability of these resources contributes to the increased perceived barriers. Thus, the problem may lie in the clinician themselves. One possible explanation for the increased perceived barriers by the Cautious cluster is their lack of confidence in addressing barriers. Our results show that the Cautious cluster is significantly less confident in addressing the #1 barrier their patients face to CGM use, which is most commonly listed as cost-related barriers such as cost of the device or insurance status. One possible solution to this lack of confidence in clinicians is increased education on ways to address and coach patients on cost-related barriers.

Diabetes mellitus, whether type 1 or type 2, offers special challenges to home health care providers. Treatment of diabetes can become increasing complex. While insulin remains the cornerstone of treatment in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), the utilization of insulin to safely control blood glucose is also necessary for many patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Many different insulin products are available, with each product possessing different characteristics and adverse effect potential. Balancing glycemic control with patient safety is paramount. The individualization of insulin therapy can be challenging for both patients and health care professionals. Regular evaluation of blood glucose monitoring is vital for patient assessment. This article provides a review of insulin for providers caring for patients in the home health care setting.

No description available.

Kumulative Dissertation, die sich mit den Herausforderungen der nichtinvasiven Blutglucosediagnostik sowie mit dem Qualitätsmonitoring von Biopharmazeutika am Beispiel Insulin beschäftigt. In beiden Forschungsbereichen wird die Infrarotspektroskopie eingesetzt, wobei verschiedene elektromagnetische Strahlungsbereiche (mitlleres und nahes Infrarot) zum Einsatz kommen. Ebenfalls werden unterschiedliche Messtechniken der Fourier-Transform-Infrarot-Spektroskopie eingesetzt, die die Vor- und Nachteile in den genannten Forschungsbereichen beleuchten.