Patient-reported outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus: patients’ and primary care physicians’ perspectives in the Spanish health care system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Josep Franch-Nadal,1,2 Elena Labrador Barba,3 M Carmen Gómez-García,4 Pilar Buil-Cosiales,5 José Manuel Millaruelo,6 María Luisa Orera Peña3 1AEP Raval Sud, Barcelona, 2Center for Biomedical Research Network of Diabetes and Associated Metabolic Diseases (CIBERDEM), Madrid, 3Established Pharmaceuticals Division, Mylan EPD, Madrid, 4Centro de Salud Velez Norte, Málaga, 5Centro de Salud Azpilagana, Pamplona, 6Centro de Salud Torrero La Paz, Zaragoza, Spain Objective: Understanding patients’ and physicians’ perceptions of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management and treatment has important implications for diabetes care, allowing the identification of clinical practice issues that could be improved, leading to patients’ better understanding of the illness and, consequently, healthier self-management behaviors. The objective of this study was to identify differences between physicians’ and T2DM patients’ perceptions related to health status, patient-reported outcomes assessments, and T2DM management and treatment, in routine clinical practice in Spain.Methods: This was an observational, cross-sectional study including 1,012 T2DM patients and 974 physicians from 47 and 52 Spanish provinces, respectively. An electronic structured self-administered questionnaire containing 17 questions was designed aiming to address both physicians’ and patient’s perceptions on overall T2DM health status and patient-reported outcomes.Results: T2DM patients perceived a worse health status (40% reported having a “good” and 38% a “neither good nor bad” health status) compared with physicians’ perceptions (77% thought patients had a “good” health status). Most patients answered being “satisfied” or “neither satisfied nor unsatisfied” with the given information, while physicians considered that patients were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the information for self-monitoring blood glucose and treatment administration. Fifty-seven percent of patients reported that medical recommendations were “important”, while 58% of physicians considered it as “very important”. Fifty-three percent of patients perceived that their current T2DM treatment suited their preferences “quite a lot”, and this was lower than the proportion of physicians (69%) that believed this for their patients. Additionally, a lower percentage of patients (53%) than physicians (79%) believed that their treatment improved their health-related quality of life “quite a lot”. All differences between patients and physicians were statistically significant (P<0.001).Conclusion: Patients and physicians demonstrate different views concerning all questions related to T2DM health status and diabetes management and treatment (information, recommendations, satisfaction, and preferences). Keywords: T2DM, PROs, health-related quality of life, HRQoL, preferences, adherence, treatment satisfaction, perception
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".