Search

Background In response to the rising prevalence of diabetes in Ontario, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) launched the Ontario Diabetes Strategy. The comprehensive 4-year strategy aims to improve diabetes prevention, management and treatment, addressing 2 of Ontario’s top healthcare priorities: 1) improving access to care, and 2) reducing emergency department wait times. The purpose of this article was to provide an overview of most regional MOHLTC-funded programs and services available for Ontarians with diabetes. Methods Local Diabetes Education Programs were approached to complete a diabetes service inventory questionnaire, to gather descriptive data regarding service settings, referral processes, staff resources and capacity, the use of electronic medical record, medical directives, program strengths and challenges. The questionnaire was available in both paper-based and electronic formats. Results Data was available for 9 of the 14 Diabetes Regional Coordinating Centres across Ontario. Of the reporting 107 diabetes education programs, 41% are based in acute care settings, 53% are found in community-based settings, including Family Health Teams and Community Health Centres, with considerable variation in the diabetes complexities addressed and level of care provided. The most common challenges were coordination of services (40%) and communication with other healthcare providers (36%). Conclusion Our findings reflect the current status of most ministry-funded diabetes education programs in the province and have implications for future diabetes regional planning and quality improvement initiatives.

OBJECTIVE It is unknown whether computer-generated, patient-tailored feedback leads to improvements in glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We recruited people with type 2 diabetes aged ≥40 years with a glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥7%, living in Hamilton, Canada, who were enrolled in a community-based program (Diabetes Hamilton) that provided regular evidence-based information and listings of community resources designed to facilitate diabetes self-management. After completing a questionnaire, participants were randomly allocated to either receive or not receive periodic computer-generated, evidence-based feedback on the basis of their questionnaire responses and designed to facilitate improved glycemic control and diabetes self-management. The primary outcome was a change in A1C after 1 year. RESULTS A total of 465 participants (50% women, mean age 62 years, and mean A1C 7.83%) were randomly assigned, and 12-month A1C values were available in 96% of all participants, at which time the A1C level had decreased by an absolute amount of 0.24 and 0.15% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The difference in A1C reduction for the intervention versus control group was 0.09% (95% CI −0.08 to 0.26; P = 0.3). No between-group differences in measures of quality of life, diabetes self-management behaviors, or clinical outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS Providing computer-generated tailored feedback to registrants of a generic, community-based program that supports diabetes self-management does not lead to lower A1C levels or a better quality of life than participation in the community-based program (augmented by periodic A1C testing) alone.

OBJECTIVE It is unknown whether computer-generated, patient-tailored feedback leads to improvements in glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We recruited people with type 2 diabetes aged ≥40 years with a glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥7%, living in Hamilton, Canada, who were enrolled in a community-based program (Diabetes Hamilton) that provided regular evidence-based information and listings of community resources designed to facilitate diabetes self-management. After completing a questionnaire, participants were randomly allocated to either receive or not receive periodic computer-generated, evidence-based feedback on the basis of their questionnaire responses and designed to facilitate improved glycemic control and diabetes self-management. The primary outcome was a change in A1C after 1 year. RESULTS A total of 465 participants (50% women, mean age 62 years, and mean A1C 7.83%) were randomly assigned, and 12-month A1C values were available in 96% of all participants, at which time the A1C level had decreased by an absolute amount of 0.24 and 0.15% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The difference in A1C reduction for the intervention versus control group was 0.09% (95% CI −0.08 to 0.26; P = 0.3). No between-group differences in measures of quality of life, diabetes self-management behaviors, or clinical outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS Providing computer-generated tailored feedback to registrants of a generic, community-based program that supports diabetes self-management does not lead to lower A1C levels or a better quality of life than participation in the community-based program (augmented by periodic A1C testing) alone.