Open Access

Patients' opinion on the barriers to diabetes control in areas of conflicts: The Iraqi example

Conflict and Health20082:7

https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1505-2-7

Received: 31 March 2008

Accepted: 24 June 2008

Published: 24 June 2008

Abstract

Background

The health system in Iraq has undergone progressive decline since the embargo that followed the second gulf war in 1991. The aim of this study is to see barriers to glycemic control form the patient perspective, in a diabetic clinic in the south of Iraq.

Methods

A cross sectional study from the diabetes out-patient clinic in Al-Faiha general hospital in Basrah, South Iraq for the period from January to December 2007. The study includes diabetic patients whether type 1 or 2 if they have at least one year of follow up in the same clinic. Those with A1C ≥ 7% were interviewed by special questionnaire, that was filled in by the medical staff of the clinic. The subjects analyzed in this study were adults (≥ 18 years old) with previously diagnosed diabetes (n = 3522). The duration of diabetes range from 1 to 30 years.

Results

Mean A1C was 8.4 ± 2 percent, with 835(23.7%) patients with A1C less than 7% and 2688(76.3%) equal to or more than 7%. Of 3522 studied patients, 46.6% were men and 51.5% were women, with mean age of 53.78 ± 12.81 year and age range 18–97 years. Patient opinion for not achieving good glycemic control among 2688 patients with HbA1C ≥ 7% included the following. No drug supply from primary health care center (PHC) or drug shortage is a cause in 50.8% of cases, while drugs and or laboratory expense were the cause in 50.2%. Thirty point seven percent of patients said that they were unaware of diabetics complications and 20.9% think that diabetes is an untreatable disease. Thirty percent think that non-control of their diabetes is due to migration after the war. No electricity or erratic electricity, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is not available, or strips were not available or could not be used, and illiteracy as a cause was seen in 15%, 10.8% and 9.9% respectively.

Conclusion

Our patients with diabetes mellitus declared that of the causes for poor glycemic control most of them related to the current health situation in Iraq.

Background

The health system in Iraq underwent progressive decline since the embargo that followed the second gulf war in 1991. The war in 2003, exacerbated that by causing further damage to the infrastructure, with lack of security that making even drug distribution unsafe, with further deterioration due to electricity problems [13]. This makes drug storage even more difficult.

Reports by the United Nations assistance mission for Iraq indicate that the war in Iraq caused hundreds of thousands of civilians have been displaced, and that military operations in the country are limiting civilian access to health and education services, food, electricity and water supplies [3]. Currently, the Iraqi health system is unable to cope with the health care needs of its population [2, 4].

Attaining glycemic control (defined as a A1C concentration of less than 7.0%) is imperative for the delay or prevention of diabetes related complications, which are the real dangers of type 2 diabetes [5, 6].

For each 1% reduction in the mean A1C, there was a 21% risk reduction for any diabetes-related end point, including myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation, and microvascular complications [7].

Despite the increasing prevalence of diabetes, improved understanding of the disease, and a variety of new medications, glycemic control does not appear to be improving even in developed nations [8].

Most diabetic patients are likely to encounter barriers to care that pose major challenges in adhering to self-management programmes[9]. Determining the barriers to achieving optimal glycemic control is important in enabling patients to do better in terms of improving diabetes control and thereby reducing risk of longer-term complications[10]. The most frequently reported barriers are time constraints, knowledge deficits, limited social support, inadequate resources, limited coping skills, poor patient-provider relationship and low self-efficacy[11, 12].

General practitioners (GPs) often assume that the best methods to increase compliance/adherence are shocking the patients, putting pressure on them and threatening to refer them to hospital in a study of GPs' perspectives of type 2 diabetes patients' adherence to treatment[13]. The problems and barriers perceived by GPs providing diabetes care in primary care in England and Wales were lack of time/under-funding and keeping up to date in the area of diabetes, followed by lack of space, inadequate chiropody, dietetics, ophthalmology and access to secondary care[14].

Of a population of 27 million Iraqi populations, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions, impacting an estimated 2 million people–7.43% of the overall Iraqi population[15].

The aim of this study is to see barriers to glycemic control form the patient perspective in a diabetic clinic in the south of Iraq.

Methods

Participants were recruited in this cross-sectional study from the diabetes out-patient clinic in Al-Faiha general hospital in Basrah, Southern Iraq for the period from January to December 2007.

The study includes diabetic patients whether type 1 or 2 if they had at least one year of follow up in the same clinic. Those with A1C ≥ 7% were interviewed by special questionnaire that was filled out by the medical staff of the clinic. Overall, 8 questions were present in the questionnaire. Patients were asked to mention the main causes of poor glycemic control from these 8 questions, and to choose more than one answer according to their wishes. The answers were yes or no. These questionnaires where suggested from the patients opinion for the cause of poor glycemic control of the last year preceding this study.

All the patients agreed to participate in the study with written informed consent taken. Ethical approval was taken from the local ethical committee in Basrah directorate of health.

Exclusion criteria were age less than 18 years, pregnant women, and patients with a history of diabetes for less than 1 year, less than one year of follow up in the clinic or those had no value of A1C.

The subjects analyzed in this study were adults (≥ 18 years old) with previously diagnosed diabetes (n = 3522). The duration of diabetes ranged from 1 to 30 years.

Lifestyle modification where used for of our patients with oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD), metformin unless there was high serum creatinine levels ≥ 132.6 μmol/L (1.5 mg/dl) according to guidelines [16].

Smokers were considered for any one who had smoked at least 1 cigarette in the past 3 months.

Anthropometric measurements

Waist circumference (WC) was measured at the umbilical level from the horizontal plane in centimeters (cm), using a plastic anthropometric tape with the subjects standing and breathing normally by the same physician during the physical examination with the participant standing erect. Standing height and weight measurements were completed with the subjects wearing lightweight clothing and no shoes. Height was measured to the nearest cm and weight was measured to the nearest half kilogram (kg). Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as body weight in kilograms divided by the squared value of body height in meters (kg/m2). Waist to hip ratio (WHpR) and waist to height ration (WHtR) were measured accordingly as ratios.

Blood pressure was measured with a mercury sphygmomanometer on the right arm with the subjects in a sitting position after a 5 min rest. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg and/or current medication with antihypertensive drugs.

Coronary heart disease diagnosis was based on a history of admission to CCU with elevated cardiac biomarkers, electrocariographic evidence of Q wave myocardial infarction or left bundle branch block, echocardiographic segmental wall motion abnormalities, abnormal angiocardiography, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery. Cerebrovascular disease was diagnosed on the basis of sudden neurologic deficit that lasted for 24 hours with or without neuroimaging changes. Proteinuria was considered on the basis of persistent frank proteinuria without RBC or WBC in urine.

All measurements of A1C were performed in a laboratory using an ion-exchange HPLC method, whose upper reference limit was 5.8%.

Statistical analysis

Patients' characteristics were reported as percentages or mean ± standard deviation. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for WINDOWS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Two-sample comparisons of individual characteristics were performed by Student's t-test or x2 test. Differences were considered significant at the P < 0.05 level for all these tests.

Patients' characteristics were reported as percentages or mean ± standard deviation.

Results

Mean A1C was 8.4 ± 2 percent, with 835 (23.7%) patients having A1C less than 7% and 2688(76.3%) were equal to or more than 7%. Table 1, shows basic study characteristics. Of 3522 studied patients, 46.6% were men and 51.5% were women, with mean age of 53.78 ± 12.81 years and age range 18–97 years. Smokers constituted 20.6% of the study sample. The mean qualification (years of school achievement) was 5.08 ± 5.67 years and 1725(49.0%) were Illiterate. Urban dwellers constituted 60.8%. Mean weight, waist, and BMI were 76.04 ± 16.94 kg, 98.4 ± 12.9 cm and 27.6 ± 5.6 respectively. The WHpR and WHtR were 0.94 ± .07 and 0.59 ± .08 respectively. Type 1 diabetes mellitus constituted for 3.6% and the others were type 2 diabetes mellitus. Insulin with or without OAD was used in 20.8%. Hypertensive constituted 32.1% of the study sample. Coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and proteinuria were seen in 7.2%, 4.3% and 5.3% respectively.
Table 1

Baseline study characteristics (n = 3522, aged 18–97 years).

Variables

HbA1C < 7% n = 835(%)

HbA1C ≥ 7 n = 2688 (%)

Total No (%)

P value

Gender

Men

383 (22.8)

1299 (77.2)

1676(47.6)

0.282

 

Women

442 (24.3)

1374 (75.7)

1816 (51.5)

 

Age

55.14 ± 12.96

53.35 ± 12.73

53.78 ± 12.81

0.622

Smoker

141 (19.4)

585 (80.6)

726(20.6)

0.002

Qualification

5.31 ± 5.80

5.01 ± 5.63

5.08 ± 5.67

0.401

Address

Urban

518 (24.2)

1624 (75.8)

2142(60.8)

0.408

 

Rural

317 (23.0)

1063 (77.0)

1380(39.2)

 

Weight -kg-(mean ± SD)

76.84 ± 16.32

75.79 ± 17.12

76.04 ± 16.94

0.122

Waist -cm-(mean ± SD)

98.96 ± 12.4

98.3 ± 13.0

98.4 ± 12.9

0.371

BMI

28.09 ± 5.55

27.53 ± 5.62

27.6 ± 5.6

0.988

Waist-hip ratio (mean ± SD)

0.94 ± 0.06

0.94 ± 0.07

0.94 ± .07

0.030

Waist-to-height ratio (mean ± SD)

0.59 ± 0.07

0.59 ± .08

0.59 ± .08

0.903

Type of diabetes

Type 1 diabetes

11 (8.7)

116 (91.3)

127(3.6)

< 0.0001

 

Type 2 diabetes

824 (24.3)

2571(75.7)

3395(96.4)

 

Therapy

Oral *

744 (26.7)

2044 (73.3)

2788 (79.2)

< 0.0001

 

Insulin ± oral

91 (12.4)

643 (87.6)

734(20.8)

< 0.0001

Hypertension

277 (24.5)

855 (75.5)

1132(32.1)

0.471

Coronary heart disease

55 (21.7)

198 (78.3)

253 (7.2)

0.490

Cerebrovascular disease

44 (29.3)

106 (70.7)

150(4.3)

0.116

Proteinuria

48 (25.7)

139 (74.3)

187(5.3)

0.536

* Oral including metformin was used for all except in few with high creatinine or type 1 diabetes.

Table 2, shows patient opinion for not achieving good glycemic control among the 2688 patients with A1C ≥ 7%. No drug supply from primary health care center (PHC) or drug shortage is a cause in 50.8%, while drugs and or laboratory expense were the cause in 50.2%. Thirty point seven percent of patients said that they were unaware of diabetic complications and 20.9% thought that diabetes is an untreatable disease. Thirty percent think that non-control of their diabetes is due to migration after the war. No electricity or erratic electricity, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is not available, or no strips were available or could not be used, and illiteracy as a cause was seen in 15%, 10.8% and 9.9% respectively.
Table 2

Why do you think that it is difficult to control your diabetes?* (Among 2688 patients with A1C ≥ 7, aged 18–97 years)

Answers

No (%)

1-Illiteracy

268(9.9)

2-No electricity or erratic

403(15)

3-Migration

806(30)

4-Needle phobia

354(13.2)

4-No drug supply from PHC **,or shortage

1365(50.8)

5-Drugs and or laboratory expense

1349(50.2)

6-Unawareness of diabetic complications

825(30.7)

7-Diabetes is untreatable

561(20.9)

8-Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is not available, or no strips were available or could not be used.

290(10.8)

*Some have more than one answer.

** PHC -primary health care center

Discussion

Our diabetic patients are far from achieving glycemic goal since their mean A1C% was 8.4 ± 2, and only 23.7% achieve target glycemic control according to guidelines[5, 6]. From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, < 50% of patients with self reported diabetes were at target A1C[17].

Insulin was under used by our patients, only used in 20.8%. In United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study over 6 years, ~53% of patients will require addition of insulin therapy to achieve target HbA1C[18].

In Iraq, diabetic patients received their medications including insulin from the PHC that distributed all over, but after the war in 2003, there was catastrophic shortage of drug supply [1]. That's why most patients blame the PHC as a cause of uncontrolled of diabetes. So they buy it from the market, in that case its expensive. Furthermore, people do not always trust governmental hospitals in investigations and they rely on private laboratories which are expensive and that why 50.2% of them blame the expense.

Unawareness of diabetic's complications is a problem in 30.7% and 20.9% thought diabetes is an untreatable disease. Not understanding the nature and consequences of diabetes, as well as a lack of family support, correlated with poor adherence in adults with diabetes[19]. In diabetes care, patients' beliefs about the nature of their illness influence their willingness to adhere to therapy[20]. Unfortunately, there are usually no immediate physical benefits to the treatment of diabetes. Patients who take their diabetes seriously are more likely to adhere to treatment [21]. We have noticed that again as in previous study in Basrah were more than 50% of our patients stopped metformin after a while and more than 80% of those who stopped it, did that with no medical advice to stop it [22].

Migration was blamed in 30% of our study sample. There is more than one type of migration in Basrah after the war, One type is migration from other governorates in Iraq to Basrah and another one is migration within the city. The 3rd type is out side Iraq or to other parts of the country, and we have no data on those because they left.

Needle phobia was a problem in 13.2%. This was problem among 34.7% of 1,267 diabetic patients, in California [23].

Erratic electricity supply no availability of SMBG with illiteracy are problem sizable percents of our study. All guidelines for diabetes management–support the integral role of SMBG in overall treatment programs [5, 6].

Conclusion

Our patients with diabetes mellitus declared that of the causes for poor glycemic control most of them related to the current health situation in Iraq.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the medical staff of the diabetic clinic in Al-Faiha general hospital in Basrah for their help and dr. Emad Sakran from Department of Medicine, from the same hospital for his help in collecting data, and Lesley Pocock Publisher and Managing Director medi+WORLD International World CME for reviewing of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Basrah College of Medicine, Basrah

References

  1. Mansour AA, Wanoose HL: Insulin crisis in Iraq. The Lancet. 2007, 369: 1860-10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60849-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Wolfenden L, Wiggers J: Addressing the health costs of the Iraq war: the role of health organisations. Med J Aust. 2007, 186: 380-1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. Human rights report. 1 July – 31 August 2006 (accessed Nov 2006)Google Scholar
  4. Al Sheibani BI, Hadi NR, Hasoon T: Iraq lacks facilities and expertise in emergency medicine. BMJ. 2006, 333: 847-10.1136/bmj.38986.476782.68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care in diabetes–2008. Diabetes Care. 2008, 31 (Suppl 1): S12-54. 10.2337/dc08-S012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: executive summary. (The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J. 2007, 28: 88-13. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl260.Google Scholar
  7. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, Matthews DR, Manley SE, Cull CA: Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000, 12;321: 405-12. 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson J: Strategies for improving glycemic control: effective use of glucose monitoring. Am J Med. 2005, 118 (Suppl 9A): 27S-32S. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.07.054.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Aljasem LI, Peyrot M, Wissow L, Rubin RR: The impact of barriers and self-efficacy on self-care behaviors in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2001, 27: 393-404. 10.1177/014572170102700309.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Shaw KM: Overcoming the hurdles to achieving glycemic control. Metabolism. 2006, 55 (5 Suppl 1): S6-9. 10.1016/j.metabol.2006.02.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Tu KS, Barchard K: An assessment of diabetes self-care barriers in older adults. J Community Health Nurs. 1993, 10: 113-8. 10.1207/s15327655jchn1002_6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Williamson AR, Hunt AE, Pope JF, Tolman NM: Recommendations of dietitians for overcoming barriers to dietary adherence in individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2000, 26: 272-9. 10.1177/014572170002600207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Wens J, Vermeire E, Royen PV, Sabbe B, Denekens J: GPs' perspectives of type 2 diabetes patients' adherence to treatment: A qualitative analysis of barriers and solutions. BMC Fam Pract. 2005, 12;6: 20-10.1186/1471-2296-6-20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Agarwal G, Pierce M, Ridout D, Primary Care Diabetes (the Primary Care Section of the British Diabetic Association): The GP perspective: problems experienced in providing diabetes care in UK general practice. Diabet Med. 2002, 19 (Suppl 4): 13-20. 10.1046/j.1464-5491.19.s4.4.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Mansour AA, Wanoose HL, Hani I, Abed-Alzahrea A, Wanoose HL: Diabetes screening in Basrah, Iraq: A population-based cross-sectional study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007, 79: 147-50. 10.1016/j.diabres.2007.07.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, Heine RJ, Holman RR, Sherwin R, Zinman B: Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: A consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006, 29: 1963-72. 10.2337/dc06-9912. Erratum in: Diabetes Care. 2006;49:2816-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Resnick HE, Foster GL, Bardsley J, Ratner RE: Achievement of American Diabetes Association clinical practice recommendations among U.S. adults with diabetes, 1999–2002: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes Care. 2006, 29: 531-7. 10.2337/diacare.29.03.06.dc05-1254.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wright A, Burden AC, Paisey RB, Cull CA, Holman RR, U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Sulfonylurea inadequacy: efficacy of addition of insulin over 6 years in patients with type 2 diabetes in the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 57). Diabetes Care. 2002, 25: 330-6. 10.2337/diacare.25.2.330. Erratum in: Diabetes Care 2002;25:1268View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Albright TL, Parchman M, Burge SK, RRNeST Investigators: Predictors of self-care behavior in adults with type 2 diabetes: an RRNeST study. Fam Med. 2001, 33: 354-60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lutfey KE, Wishner WJ: Beyond "compliance" is "adherence". Improving the prospect of diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 1999, 22: 635-10.2337/diacare.22.4.635.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McCord EC, Brandenburg C: Beliefs and attitudes of persons with diabetes. Fam Med. 1995, 27: 267-71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mansour AA, Habib OS: Metformin discontinuation rate among patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus in Basrah, Iraq. Saudi Med J. 2007, 28: 1919-21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Guzman S, Villa-Caballero L, Edelman SV: Psychological insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes: the scope of the problem. Diabetes Care. 2005, 28: 2543-5. 10.2337/diacare.28.10.2543.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Mansour; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.