Awareness of pathophysiological concepts of type 2 diabetes—A survey in 847 physicians

Abstract Aims The aim of the study was to determine physicians’ knowledge of specific concepts generally implicated in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods A multiple choice online survey was completed by 847 physicians, of which 516 were engaged in primary care (PCP) and 331 in spe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diabetes research and clinical practice 2007-06, Vol.76 (3), p.445-448
Hauptverfasser: Busse, Franziska P, Denti, Veronica, Stumvoll, Michael
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Aims The aim of the study was to determine physicians’ knowledge of specific concepts generally implicated in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods A multiple choice online survey was completed by 847 physicians, of which 516 were engaged in primary care (PCP) and 331 in specialized care (SCP) in the US, the UK, Germany and France (3–30 years in practice, at least 40 patients with T2D). A continuous rating system was used to measure familiarity (“totally familiar” to “never heard of”) or agreement with a statement (from “totally agree” to “totally disagree”). Results The term “insulin resistance” was recognized by 74% of PCPs and 90% of SCPs ( p < 0.05) and 76% felt that it was “a key but not the sole determinant of T2D”. Only 47% agreed that “beta cell dysfunction is a key determinant of T2D onset” and 57% agreed with “beta cell dysfunction being a key determinant of T2D progression”. Even among SCPs, 6% were not familiar with the term “beta cell dysfunction” (16% among PCPs, p < 0.05). The overall familiarity with the following terms was: 55% with “beta cell dysfunction”, 56% with “beta cells”, 38% with “glucagon”, 32% with “alpha cells”, 55% with “hepatic glucose output”, 15% with “incretins” and 18% with “GLP-1”. SCPs were significantly more familiar with all terms than PCPs (all p -values
ISSN:0168-8227
1872-8227
DOI:10.1016/j.diabres.2006.09.037