Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Advertise | Login 
Search Article 
Advanced search 
  Users Online: 2651 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 8  |  Page : 426-427

Physicians' perceptions of a national consensus guideline on insulin therapy: Data from the IMPACT study

1 Bharti Hospital and B.R.I.D.E., Karnal, India
2 Institute of Diabetology, Madras Medical College, Chennai, India
3 Dr. V. Seshiah Diabetes Research Institute and Dr. Balaji Diabetes Care Centre, Chennai, India
4 6-3-852/A, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, India
5 Diabetes Care and Research Centre, GCIB, Patna, India
6 Department of Diabetology, Government Rajaji Medical College, Madurai, India
7 Diabetes Care & Research Institute, P.H. Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai, India
8 Department of Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry, India
9 Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Sanjay Kalra
Bharti Hospital & B.R.I.D.E., Karnal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2230-8210.104117

Rights and Permissions

Introduction : The effectiveness and impact of the Indian insulin guideline in clinical practice was evaluated by the Improving Management Practices and Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes (IMPACT) Study. The study also evaluated the participating physicians' perceptions on the use of IIG versus RCP for management of diabetes. Materials and Method : This 26 week multicenter, open label, randomized, prospective study aimed to evaluate effectiveness of Indian insulin guideline (IIG) versus routine clinical practice (RCP) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Results : Out of 426 physicians who completed the physicians' perception questionnaire, 189 (44.4%) felt that it was "easy" to initiate insulin in their patients using IIG. Cost of therapy (52.3%), followed by poor adherence (40.3%), and lack of motivation among physicians (40.4%) were the most important reasons cited for delay in initiation of insulin therapy. Two hundred and thirty three (54.7%) physicians felt that insulin titration was made "easy" in their patients using IIG, while 104 (24.4%) had a neutral approach. A total of 222 physicians (52.1%) felt it was "convenient" applying IIG in their practice, and 239 (67.8%) physicians felt "satisfied" with using IIG for achieving the targeted HbA1c <7%. One hundred and seventy seven (41.5%) physicians felt that there was scope for improving the IIG further by simplifying and revising the titration charts [117 (27.5%)]. Conclusion : Primary care physicians in India have perceived the IIG to be easy algorithm to initiate and titrate insulin therapy. These results will encourage the use and facilitate future revision of the guideline.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded282    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal