Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice - Volume 120 - Supplement 1 - October 2016

76 / 244

68.4%). There were no differences in calories, protein, fat, and
carbohydrate intake between those two groups. We found
that fiber intake (19.6 ± 9.7 vs. 15.5 ± 7.8 g/day, p < 0.01), mag-
nesium (341 ± 158 vs. 223 ± 101 mg/day, p < 0.001), phosphate
(1239 ± 478 vs. 945 ± 379 mg/day, p = 0.001), folic acid (149 ± 82
vs. 129 ± 54 mg/day, p < 0.001), niacin (19.3 ± 7.8 vs. 12.2 ± 5.1
mg/day, p < 0.001), calcium (631 ± 422 vs. 452 ± 298 mg/day,
p < 0.001) and iron (16.5 ± 7.9 vs. 12.6 ± 6.2 mg/day, p < 0.01)
intake were significantly higher in the whole grain group,
while sodium intake (1054 ± 628 vs.1197 ± 811 mg/day, p < 0.01)
was significantly lower in thewhole grain group. Values of SBP,
DBP, total cholesterol, HDL and triglyceride were not different
between whole grain and no whole grain groups. Levels of
HbA1c (7.5 ± 1.3 vs. 7.6 ± 1.5%, p = 0.02) and LDL-cholesterol
(96.2 ± 25.2 vs. 101.3 ± 30.3, p = 0.036) were also significantly
lower in the whole grain group. Percentages of those who
attained the ABC goals in the whole grain group were 13.5%
compared with 8.5% in the no whole grain group (p = 0.058).
Furthermore, when vegetables (at least once a day) and fruit (at
least once a day) intake were added with whole grain group
together, the percentages of those who reached the ABC goals
were significantly higher in all intake at least once a day
compared with those no intake(15.9% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.017). In
conclusion, nutrients intake of the whole grain (at least once a
day) group and glycemic controls were better than those who
did not take any whole grain group, We have to encourage
diabetes patients to take whole grain food to increase the
nutrients intake and maintain a better diabetes control.
OL08-2
Chinese physician– patient communication at T2D diagnosis
and links between patient-perceived communication quality
and patient outcomes: Insights from the IntroDia ™ study
Yingying LUO 1*, Linong JI1, Susan DOWN 2, Anne BELTON3,
Matthew CAPEHORN 4, William H. POLONSKY5,
Steven EDELMAN 6, Victoria GAMERMAN7, James EMMERSON8,
Aus ALZAID 9. 1Department of Endocrinology, Peking University
People’s Hospital, Beijing, China; 2Somerset Partnership NHS
Foundation Trust, Bridgwater, United Kingdom; 3International
Diabetes Federation, Brussels, Belgium and The Michener Institute for
Applied Health Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 4National
Obesity Forum, UK and Clifton Medical Centre, Rotherham, United
Kingdom; 5Department of Psychiatry, University of California San
Diego, Behavioral Diabetes Institute, 6Division of Endocrinology and
Metabolism, University of California San Diego, Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, San Diego, California, 7Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, Connecticut, United States of
America; 8Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim,
Germany; 9Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Effective communication between physicians and type 2
diabetes (T2D) patients may improve patient self-care and
outcomes. IntroDia ™ is a global survey investigating phys-
ician-patient conversations in early T2D diagnosis and treat-
ment and the potential impact on patient self-care and self-
reported outcomes. As part of IntroDia ™, 3628 T2D patients
from 26 countries were surveyed about conversations with
physicians at diagnosis.
A total of 886 T2D patients from China on 1 oral antidiabetes
drug completed an on-line survey on conversations with
physicians at diagnosis. Parameters examined included the
conversation ’s content (via a 43-item version of PACIC
modified for T2D diagnosis), conversation quality (using
CAHPS, TIPS and IPC scale items to ascertain patient-perceived
communication quality [PPCQ]), current psychosocial status
(WHO-5, DDS) and self-care behaviour (SDSCA).
Four statement types were identified by factor analysis on a
global level – Collaborative (e.g. “Gave me choices about
treatment to think about”), Encouraging (e.g. “Told me that a
lot can be done to control my diabetes ”), Discouraging (e.g.
“ Told me that diabetes gets harder…” ) and Recommending
Other Resources (ROR) (e.g. “Referred me to a dietician, health
educator, nurse or counselor” ). In China, PPCQ was posi-
tively associated with Encouraging (β = 0.72, p < 0.001) and
Collaborative (β = 0.53, p < 0.001), negatively associated with
Discouraging (β = −0.53, p < 0.001) and not significantly asso-
ciated with ROR (β = −0.11, p = 0.157).
In turn, PPCQ was significantly associated with better self-care
behavior (SDSCA – general diet: β = 1.84, p < 0.001; specific diet:
β = 1.54, p < 0.001; exercise: β = 1.47, p < 0.001; medication:
β = 1.77, p < 0.001), poorer general well-being (WHO-5:
β = −0.19, p < 0.001), and not significantly associated with
diabetes distress (emotional DDS: β = 0.08, p = 0.176; regimen
DDS: β = 0.02, p = 0.718).
Physicians’ use of collaborative and encouraging conver-
sation elements at T2D diagnosis may improve physicians’
communication with patients, leading to slightly less general
wellbeing but overall better patient self-care behaviour.
Conversations using discouraging elements, however, may
be counterproductive.
OL08-3
Multidimensional effects of a diabetes management program
in a Taipei community hospital – a 7-year prospective follow-
up study
Chih-Cheng HSU1, Yu-Kang CHANG 1, Jiun-Yian LIN2,
Pi-Yuan WONG2, I-Chuan LIN2, I-Ju LIEN2,
Chung-Hsueh CHUNG2, Tong-Yuan TAI 2*. 1Institute of
Population Health Sciences, National Health Research Institutes,
Zhunan, 2Taipei Jen-Chi Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Background: Multidisciplinary diabetes management program
has often been deemed as the important strategy to improve
quality of diabetes care. However, value-added effects of the
embodied health education remain unclear. We therefore used
a 7-year longitudinal diabetes cohort to demonstrate the
effects of usual medical care and the additional benefits to
diabetes control after implementing an accredited diabetes
management program in a community hospital.
Methods: We used descriptive statistics and trajectory ana-
lyses to investigate the changes of diabetes care indicators in
two time periods: before and after implementation of the
diabetes management program. The investigated diabetes
care indicators included fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, blood
pressure, triglyceride, total cholesterol, low-density lipopro-
tein cholesterol (LDL-C), smoking rate and frequency of
exercise per week.
Results: Since 2006, the investigated community hospital has
implemented a diabetesmanagement program, strengthening
dietetic consultation, health education, and case manage-
ment. The data surveillance center has currently recorded 300
enrollees to this program. Of the enrollees, 52.7% were male,
52.0% had education level ≦6 years, mean age was 61.2 ± 10.4
years at the first visit, and diabetes duration was 8.6 ± 8.0 years
upon participating in the program. Compared to one year
before participation, the following indicators had been signifi-
cantly improved one year after recruited in the diabetes
management program: diastolic blood pressure (75.5 vs.
74.0 mmHg; P = 0.001), fasting blood sugar (148.9 vs. 135.0 mg/
dL; P < 0.001), HbA1c (8.0 vs. 7.4%; P < 0.001), total cholesterol
(192.6 vs. 181.4 md/dL; P < 0.001), LDL-C (121.2 vs. 113.4 mg/dL;
P = 0.007), triglyceride (181.2 vs. 152.3 mg/dL; P = 0.011), male
smoking rate (30.1 vs. 25.8%; P = 0.032), and regular exercise
(3.7 vs. 4.1 times per week; P < 0.001). Inspecting the 7-year
trajectory pattern, we found systolic and diastolic blood
pressure, total cholesterol, and LDL-C had continuously been
reduced since the patients received usual medical care;
however, glycemic control, triglyceride level, male smoking
rate, and frequency of exercise have not been improved until
the diabetes patients were recruited in the diabetes manage-
ment program.
Oral Presentations / Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 120S1 (2016) S40–S64 S58