Effects of health check-up feedback style (HCFS) on blood glucose and weight in type 2 diabetes patients aged 75 years and older: a randomized controlled study

Q4 Nursing

中华临床营养杂志 Pub Date : 2018-04-30 DOI:10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1674-635X.2018.02.002

Ya Li, Lingling Jiao, Naishi Li, Zhenjie Wang, Hong Jiang, K. Yu

{"title":"Effects of health check-up feedback style (HCFS) on blood glucose and weight in type 2 diabetes patients aged 75 years and older: a randomized controlled study","authors":"Ya Li, Lingling Jiao, Naishi Li, Zhenjie Wang, Hong Jiang, K. Yu","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1674-635X.2018.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo analyze the effect of health check-up feedback style (HCFS) on the blood glucose level and weight of type 2 diabetes patients aged 75 years and older. \n \n \nMethods \n120 consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes and aged 75 and older who were taking annual health check-up and receiving paper-based medical examination reports at Peking Union Medical College Hospital were enrolled into this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups (control group and study group). All patients received annual health check-up between November 2014 and October 2015 (baseline health check-up). Patients in control group were given paper-based feedback as usual, while those in study group received feedback via face-to-face or telephone conversations. All patients received their second annual health check-up between November 2015 and October 2016. The patients' blood glucose and weight at the second health check-up were compared between the two groups. \n \n \nResults \nIn baseline health check-up, the levels of HbA1c and BMI showed no difference between the two groups. In the second health check-up, HbA1c and BMI of study group were lower than control group[(7.17±0.58)% vs. (7.44±0.72)%, P=0.027; (24.3±3.8)kg/m2vs. (25.0±4.2)kg/m2,P=0.049]. Fast blood glucose and waist circumference showed no difference between the two groups. \n \n \nConclusions \nCombination of paper-based reports and face-to-face or telephone conversations to feedback on health check-up results led to better blood glucose and BMI control in old aged type 2 diabetes patients. HCFS is of vital importance. \n \n \nKey words: \nDiabetes mellitus, type 2; Blood glucose; Body weight; Health check-up","PeriodicalId":9877,"journal":{"name":"中华临床营养杂志","volume":"26 1","pages":"74-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华临床营养杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1674-635X.2018.02.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To analyze the effect of health check-up feedback style (HCFS) on the blood glucose level and weight of type 2 diabetes patients aged 75 years and older. Methods 120 consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes and aged 75 and older who were taking annual health check-up and receiving paper-based medical examination reports at Peking Union Medical College Hospital were enrolled into this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups (control group and study group). All patients received annual health check-up between November 2014 and October 2015 (baseline health check-up). Patients in control group were given paper-based feedback as usual, while those in study group received feedback via face-to-face or telephone conversations. All patients received their second annual health check-up between November 2015 and October 2016. The patients' blood glucose and weight at the second health check-up were compared between the two groups. Results In baseline health check-up, the levels of HbA1c and BMI showed no difference between the two groups. In the second health check-up, HbA1c and BMI of study group were lower than control group[(7.17±0.58)% vs. (7.44±0.72)%, P=0.027; (24.3±3.8)kg/m2vs. (25.0±4.2)kg/m2,P=0.049]. Fast blood glucose and waist circumference showed no difference between the two groups. Conclusions Combination of paper-based reports and face-to-face or telephone conversations to feedback on health check-up results led to better blood glucose and BMI control in old aged type 2 diabetes patients. HCFS is of vital importance. Key words: Diabetes mellitus, type 2; Blood glucose; Body weight; Health check-up

查看原文本刊更多论文

健康检查反馈方式（HCFS）对75岁及以上2型糖尿病患者血糖和体重的影响：一项随机对照研究

目的分析健康检查反馈方式（HCFS）对75岁及以上2型糖尿病患者血糖水平和体重的影响。方法选择120例在北京协和医院接受年度健康检查并接受纸质体检报告的75岁及以上2型糖尿病患者作为研究对象。将患者随机分为两组（对照组和研究组）。所有患者在2014年11月至2015年10月期间接受年度健康检查（基线健康检查）。对照组患者照常接受纸质反馈，而研究组患者则通过面对面或电话交谈接受反馈。所有患者在2015年11月至2016年10月期间接受了第二次年度健康检查。比较两组患者在第二次健康检查时的血糖和体重。结果在基线健康检查中，两组的HbA1c和BMI水平无差异。在第二次健康检查中，研究组的HbA1c和BMI低于对照组[（7.17±0.58）%vs.（7.44±0.72）%，P=0.027；（24.3±3.8）kg/m2 vs.（25.0±4.2）kg/m2，P=0.049]。结论将纸质报告与面对面或电话交谈相结合，对健康检查结果进行反馈，可以更好地控制老年2型糖尿病患者的血糖和BMI。氟氯烃至关重要。关键词：糖尿病，2型；血糖；体重；健康检查

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

中华临床营养杂志 Nursing-Nutrition and Dietetics

CiteScore

0.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

2282

期刊介绍： The Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition was founded in 1993. It is the first professional academic journal (bimonthly) in my country co-sponsored by the Chinese Medical Association and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences to disseminate information on clinical nutrition support, nutrient metabolism, the impact of nutrition support on outcomes and "cost-effectiveness", as well as translational medicine and nutrition research. It is also a professional journal of the Chinese Medical Association's Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Branch. The purpose of the Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition is to promote the rapid dissemination of knowledge on nutrient metabolism and the rational application of parenteral and enteral nutrition, focusing on the combination of multidisciplinary and multi-regional field investigations and clinical research. It mainly reports on nutritional risk screening related to the indications of parenteral and enteral nutrition support, "cost-effectiveness" research on nutritional drugs, consensus on clinical nutrition, guidelines, expert reviews, randomized controlled studies, cohort studies, glycoprotein and other nutrient metabolism research, systematic evaluation of clinical research, evidence-based case reports, special reviews, case reports and clinical experience exchanges, etc., and has a special column on new technologies related to the field of clinical nutrition and their clinical applications.