Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Awareness, agreement, adoption and adherence to type 2 diabetes mellitus guidelines: a survey of Indonesian primary care physicians

  • Indah S Widyahening1, 2Email author,
  • Yolanda van der Graaf2,
  • Pradana Soewondo3,
  • Paul Glasziou4 and
  • Geert JMG van der Heijden5
BMC Family Practice201415:72

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-15-72

Received: 10 December 2013

Accepted: 16 April 2014

Published: 23 April 2014

Abstract

Background

To assess the degree of awareness, agreement, adoption and adherence of physicians in Indonesia to type 2 diabetes mellitus guidelines, and their association with characteristics of the responders.

Methods

Questionnaire survey among General Practitioners (GPs) attending the Indonesian Association of Family Practitioners annual conference in November 2012. The proportion of GPs who were aware of, agreed with, adopted and adhered to the seven recommendations in the guidelines (screening for diabetes, diagnosis, lifestyle modification, use of sulfonylurea, target blood glucose, target blood pressure and use of statin) were calculated in the total number of responders.

Results

Of the 399 GPs participating, 383 (89%) were aware of the existence of Indonesian type 2 diabetes guidelines. Awareness for each recommendation varied from 66 to 91%. The recommendation to use a random blood glucose test for diagnosing patients with classic diabetes symptoms had the least awareness (265/399, 66%) and least agreement (163/399, 41%). The recommendation on statin use was the least adopted (192/399, 48%), while the least adherence (7/399, 2%) was found for the recommendation on screening for diabetes for patients with risk factors. Years of practice experience and proportion of diabetes patients seen in their practice were independently related with adherence to statin prescription.

Conclusions

High awareness of the Indonesian type 2 diabetes guideline does not necessary lead to adoption or adherence to recommendations important for outcomes and quality of care. The awareness-to-adherence model helps in identifying barriers for the use of guidelines.

Keywords

Awareness Adoption Adherence Diabetes Guidelines General practitioners

Background

A study by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that the total number of people with diabetes will increase from 171 million in 2000 to 366 million in 2030; mostly in developing countries [1]. This is due to population growth, aging, urbanization, and increasing prevalence of obesity and physical inactivity. The Basic Health Research Survey conducted by the Indonesian Ministry of Health in 2007 involved 24,417 participants living in urban area from all over Indonesia found that the prevalence of diabetes in Indonesia was about 6%, and about two thirds of that percentage are unaware that they have diabetes [2]. Therefore, Indonesia became the seventh largest country with diabetes people in the world [3].

Diabetes mellitus is a complex chronic disease that requires lifelong self-management and continuous medical care to prevent its acute complications and reduce its associated chronic health risks [4]. Type 2 diabetes, which is resulted from a progressive insulin secretory defect on the background of insulin resistance has been recognized as an emerging health problem in Asia Pacific, including Indonesia. On the other hand type 1 diabetes, which is resulted from β-cell destruction is less common in the region [2, 4, 5]. However, the two decade existence of the Indonesian guidelines on diabetes management seems insufficient to achieve the targets in diabetes control. Currently, about 68% of type 2 diabetes patients being cared in secondary and tertiary hospitals in Indonesia have poor blood glucose control (HbA1c > 7% or >53 mmol/mol) [6].

Guidelines may assist patients and health professionals in achieving optimal management of diabetes. The Indonesian Society of Endocrinology (Perkeni) introduced a guideline on the management and prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in 1993, and revised it on regular basis since then [7]. This guideline provides selected recommendations that have been derived from a selection of internationally established guidelines [4, 810] and consensus of Indonesian experts in endocrinology.

Several surveys have shown that the adherence varies per guideline recommendation [1115]. Barriers to guideline adherence have been identified, including the inability to access guidelines and physicians’ attitude and belief toward the guidelines [16]. Pathman et al. reported that for the consistency between patient care and guidelines recommendations, physicians must be aware of, agree with, decide to adopt (i.e. decide it is appropriate and feasible to use in their own practice), and adhere to the recommendations (i.e. actually follow them for appropriate patients at the appropriate time) [17, 18]. Several studies have been conducted based on this ‘awareness to adherence’ model, yet only one came from developing countries [17].

We would like to know whether this model applies also for a developing country like Indonesia. In this study we explore the degree of general practitioners’ awareness of agreement with, adoption of and adherence to the type 2 diabetes mellitus guidelines in Indonesia, and identify associated physicians’ characteristics.

Methods

Questionnaire design and data collection

Based on the evaluation of hypertension guidelines questionnaire by Heneghan et al. [19], we developed a similar questionnaire centered on items in the Consensus on the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus 2011 of the Indonesian Society of Endocrinology [7]. We included questions on the respondent characteristics: gender, age, specialization, practice duration, type of practice, location of practice, previous participation on type 2 diabetes management training and number and proportion of diabetes patients seen in their practice. According to the guideline recommendations we grouped the questionnaire content into screening, diagnosis, treatment, life-style modification, management of co-morbidities and diabetes complications (Table 1). For the nominal and ordinal response options we followed the Pathman ‘awareness-to-adherence’ model, notably awareness (Yes/no), agreement (Yes/Unsure/No), and adoption (i.e. the recommendation is being followed in general in the appropriate patients; always/more than half/less than half/never). Adherence was assessed with an open ended question about the system responders had in place to promote or monitor the guideline application.
Table 1

Recommendations of the Indonesian type 2 Diabetes Mellitus guideline assessed in the questionnaire

 

Statements in the guideline

Recommendation 1

Screening for type 2 diabetes should be performed in all patients with any of the risk factor listed in the guidelines.

Recommendation 2

In patients with classic DM symptoms, one random blood (plasma) glucose test with result >200 mg/dL is enough to confirm the diagnosis.

Recommendation 3

For newly diagnosed patients, management should be started with meal planning and exercise for 2–4 weeks.

Recommendation 4

Sulfonylurea is the drug of choice for normal and underweight patients.

Recommendation 5

Most patients should achieve Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG) of <100 mg/dL and 2-hour post-prandial Blood Glucose (2-h pp BG) of <140 mg/dL.

Recommendation 6

Blood pressure should be reduced to below 130/80 mmHg.

Recommendation 7

Statin should be prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes who are over 40 years old or have CVD risk.

The questionnaire was pilot tested to five GPs from the Community Medicine Department of the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia to determine whether the questions were clear, understandable, and in a logical order (face validity). Moreover the same GPs and three endocrinologists who are familiar with the diabetes guideline were asked to criticize the content of the questionnaire (content validity). Based on the results of this pilot, minor changes were made. Further psychometric evaluation of the reliability was not performed.

The final questionnaire was distributed to all physicians attending the Indonesian Association of Family Practitioners annual conference on November 2012 in Jakarta, Indonesia. The questionnaire was put in the delegates pack together with an information leaflet on consent for survey participation. Returning of the self-completed questionnaire by responders was seen as their token of consent. Before handing out their certificate of attendance conference participants were informed about the possibility of participation. The Health Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia reviewed and approved the study.

Analyses and coding of data

We explored the association between respondent characteristics and adherence to each of the seven guideline recommendations. For this we used multivariate logistic regression analysis. To prevent for a type 2 error, only GP characteristics with a univariate p-value of 0.20 or less were selected for such multivariate analyses. The outcome for these data analyses was the number of responders’ adherent to a recommendation. To prevent for spurious findings at least 10 participants adherent to the recommendation were needed for each respondent characteristic included in the multivariable analysis [20]. We used SPSS, version 20.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) for all data analysis.

Responders were classified as ‘unaware of a recommendation’ if they answered “no” on the question on familiarity with that recommendation. Agreement was classified according to whether they agreed or not with the guideline. They were considered to have adopted a guideline when they reported implementing it ‘more than half of the time’. They were considered to adhere to the recommendation when they ‘always’ or ‘more than half of the time’ applied it in clinical practice and specified the system they used to promote or monitor application. The proportions of doctors who were aware of, agreed with, adopted and adhered to each recommendation were calculated over the total number of responders.

Years of practice experience was grouped in 15 years or less and more than 15 years. The Perkeni guideline was firstly introduced in 1993. Therefore we assume that GPs who practiced less than 15 years should be aware of the guideline during their medical training.

We assumed the missing outcome data to represent no awareness, no agreement, no adoption and no adherence. For respondent characteristics with up to 15% missing data, we used conditional imputation, imputing the mean or median. We used mean and median values for imputation since we thought we had not the proper participant characteristic’s to do regression analyses for imputation.

Results

From the 662 conference participants, 414 questionnaires (63%) were collected. We included 399 (96%) questionnaires from GPs and excluded 3 questionnaires from specialists and 12 from other health care professionals (e.g. nurses and dietician/nutritionists). The missing data for awareness, agreement, adoption and adherence ranged from none to 10%. Adherence to screening had no missing data, while the proportion of missing data for adherence to statin was highest (10%). Three participant characteristics had 5% or more missing data, with a maximum of 15% for number of diabetes patients seen in a week.

Characteristics of the GP responders are presented in Table 2. The higher proportion of them were female (68%), doing a solo (individual) practice (54%), practiced in Java-the most populated island in Indonesia (72%) and had participated in diabetes management training (64%). Three-hundred forty of 383 GPs (89%) were aware of the consensus on the management of type 2 diabetes by the Indonesian Society of Endocrinology.
Table 2

Characteristics of the GP responders

Characteristics

n (%)

Mean (SD)

Min-max

Years of practicea

 

15.7 (8.8)

0-45 years

Gendera

   

  Male

126 (32)

  

  Female

273 (68)

  

Practice typea

   

  Solo practice

215 (54)

  

  Private clinic

64 (16)

  

  Public health center

86 (22)

  

  Private hospital

20 (5)

  

  Public hospital (non academic)

8 (2)

  

  Academic hospital

6 (1)

  

Practice locationc

   

  Jakarta

119 (30)

  

  Outside Jakarta but within Java island

167 (42)

  

  Outside java

113 (28)

  

Participation in DM trainingb

   

  Yes

234 (64)

  

  No

165 (36)

  

Number of DM patients seen in a weekc

 

13.0 (15.9)

1-120

Proportion of DM patients among all patients seena

   

  <10%

261 (66)

  

  10-30%

117 (29)

  

  >30%

21 (5)

  

Awareness to DM consensusa

   

  Never knew

43 (11)

  

  Heard but never had a copy

138 (36)

  

  Had but never read the consensus

78 (20)

  

  Has read and implemented it

124 (33)

  

Missing data: a:<5%; b:5-10%; c:>10-15%.

Figure 1 shows the proportions of the responders who were aware of, agreed with, adopted and adhered to the recommendations of the Indonesian type 2 diabetes mellitus guidelines. Awareness of each recommendation varied between 66 to 91% while agreement with varied between 41 to 87%. The least aware (265/399, 66%) and least agreed (163/399, 41%) recommendation was on the use of random blood (plasma) glucose test to diagnose patients with classic diabetes symptoms.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2296-15-72/MediaObjects/12875_2013_Article_1042_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Proportions of awareness, agreement, adoption, and adherence of GPs (n = 399) to selected recommendations from the Indonesian type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) guidelines. Proportions (%) were computed based on the total GPs responders. Missing data was: <5% for screening (all), diagnosis (all), lifestyle modifications (awareness, agreement and adoption), and adherence on sulfonylurea. 5-10% for adherence on lifestyle modification, sulfonylurea (awareness, agreement and adoption), blood glucose target (all), blood pressure target (all) and statin prescription (all).

Adoption varied between 48 to 68%. The least adopted was statin use in type 2 diabetes who are over 40 years old or have CVD risk (192/399, 48%). Adherence varied between 2 to 45%, while the least adherence was on the recommendation to perform type 2 diabetes screening in patients with any risk factor listed in the guideline (7/399, 2%).

The summary of the univariate associations (p ≤ 0.2) for six participant characteristics on adherence to the six recommendations can be found in Table 3 and the multivariate associations in Table 4. We were not able to investigate the presence of participant characteristics on the adherence to screening as the number of events was too small (7 events).
Table 3

Univariate associations (odds ratio and their 95% CI) between GPs (n = 399) characteristics and adherence to Indonesian type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) guideline recommendations

 

Diagnosis

Lifestyle modification

Sulfonylurea for treatment

Blood glucose target

Blood pressure target

Statin prescription

Adherent participants: n (%)

67 (45)

145 (36)

111 (37)

61 (21)

113 (28)

118 (34)

Characteristics

      

Years of practice

      

  16 – 45*

      

  0 – 15

1.2 (0.8-1.7)b

1.4 (0.9-2.2)c

0.8 (0.6-1.3)b

0.8 (0.5-1.3)c

1.0 (0.7-1.6)c

0.7 (0.5-1.1)c

Gender

      

  Female*

      

  Male

1.1 (0.7-1.7)a

0.7 (0.5-1.2)b

1.3 (0.8-2.0)a

0.8 (0.5-1.4)b

0.8 (0.5-1.3)b

1.0 (0.6-1.6)b

Practice type

      

  Non solo practice*

      

  Solo practice

0.8 (0.6-1.2)a

0.7 (0.5-1.1)c

0.9 (0.6-1.3)b

1.0 (0.6-1.7)c

1.2 (0.8-1.9)c

1.0 (0.6-1.4)b

Practice location

      

  Outside Jakarta*

      

  Jakarta

0.9 (0.6-1.4)c

1.5 (1.0-2.3)d

1.0 (0.6-1.6)c

0.8 (0.5-1.4)d

1.1 (0.7-1.7)d

1.1 (0.7-1.7)d

DM training

      

  No*

      

  Yes

1.1 (0.7-1.7)b

1.3 (0.8-2.0)d

1.2 (0.8-1.9)c

1.0 (0.6-1.7)d

1.0 (0.6-1.6)d

1.1 (0.7-1.7)d

Proportion DM patients

      

  10% and above*

      

  <10%

1.0 (0.7-1.5)b

0.8 (0.5-1.2)c

0.9 (0.6-1.4)b

1.5 (0.9-2.5)c

1.1 (0.7-1.8)c

0.7 (0.5-1.1)c

Missing data: a:0- < 5%, b:5-10%, c:>10-15%, d:>15-19%.

*reference.

Adherence to screening was not included in the univariate analysis since the number of events were too small (seven events).

• Life-style modification: years of practice, practice type, practice location.

Associations which have p value <0.2,

• Life-style modification: years of practice, practice type, practice location.

• Blood glucose target: proportion of diabetes patients.

• Statin: years of practice, proportion of diabetes patients.

• Diagnosis, sulfonylurea for treatment and blood pressure target: none.

Table 4

Independent associations (multivariate odds ratio and their 95% CI) between GPs (n = 399) characteristics and adherence to Indonesian type 2 Diabetes Guidelines recommendations

 

Lifestyle modification

 

Blood glucose target

 

Statin prescription

 

Characteristics

OR (95% CI)

p

OR (95% CI)

p

OR (95% CI)

p

Years of practice

      

  16 – 45*

      

  0 – 15

1.2 (0.7-2.2)c

0.50

-

 

0.7 (0.4-1.1)c

0.07

Gender

      

  Female*

      

  Male

0.9 (0.5-1.4)b

0.51

-

 

-

 

Practice type

      

  Non solo practice*

      

  Solo practice

0.9 (0.5-1.3)c

0.51

-

 

-

 

Practice location

      

  Outside Jakarta*

      

  Jakarta

1.3 (0.8-2.1)d

0.29

-

 

-

 

DM training

      

  No*

      

  Yes

-

 

-

 

-

 

Proportion DM patients

      

  10% and above*

      

  <10%

0.8 (0.5-1.3)c

0.37

1.5 (0.9-2.5)c

0.16

0.7 (0.4-1.1)c

0.08

Missing data: a:0- < 5%, b:5-10%, c:>10-15%, d:>15-19%.

*reference.

Adherence to screening was not included in the multivariate analysis as the number of events were too small.

Adherence to recommendations on diagnosis, treatment and blood pressure target have no characteristic factors univariately associated (p-value ≤ 0.20) with them (see Table 3).

None of the participant characteristics were neither univariately nor multivariately associated with the recommendation on the diagnosis of diabetes (#2), Sulfonylurea for treatment (#4) and using blood pressure as treatment target (#6). During univariate regression analysis, years of practice, practice type and practice location, were associated with the recommendation on lifestyle modification (#3). However, none of these were retained during subsequent multivariate analysis. Only the proportion of diabetes patients was univariately associated with the recommendation on blood glucose as treatment target (#5).

During both univariate and subsequent multivariate analysis, adherence to the recommendation on statin prescription (#7) was found poor for responders with a practice prevalence of less than 10% diabetes patients (OR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.4;1.0, p = 0.08) and those practicing 15 years or less (OR =0.7, 95% CI: 0.4;1.0, p = 0.07).

Discussion

This study shows that awareness and agreement of the GPs of the seven recommendations of the Indonesian type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline was quite high (66 to 91%). The high awareness of GPs and their familiarity with the guideline is most likely due to the extensive promotion and marketing efforts on the introduction of the Indonesian Society of Endocrinology guidelines. Despite this high awareness, a large number of GPs neither adopted nor adhered to the guideline recommendations. A practice prevalence of less than 10% diabetes patients and practicing 15 years or less were independently related with poor adherence to statin prescription.

Awareness – agreement – adoption and adherence to the recommendations

There was high awareness among responders on the need for screening for type 2 diabetes risk factors among those without diabetes symptoms. Still, most of our responders waited until several cardiovascular risk factors emerged in the patient before they advised a screening test to the patient or they did not have a system to identify patients with risk factors. This was indicated by an extremely low (2%) adherence to the screening recommendation for identification of type 2 diabetes. This result is in contrast with findings among GPs in Switzerland about their adherence to the screening of diabetes which reach 83% [21].

We found the least agreement (41%) with the recommendation to use random blood (plasma) glucose in the diagnosis of diabetes in patients with classic diabetes symptoms. The majority of our responders believed it is more appropriate to examine patients with classic diabetes symptoms with a fasting plasma glucose test and 2-hour post-prandial plasma glucose test. Due to the fasting needed for these blood sugar tests, patients may delay or avoid the examination.

On statin prescription, we found that the level of awareness and adoption were the lowest (72% and 52%). With 32% adherence among our responders to the recommendation to prescribe statins, it is slightly higher than in a Seoul tertiary hospital (29%) [14] but much lower than the 68% adherence among Australian GPs [11]. Factors related to the adherence to the recommendation to prescribe statins in our study were more years of practice experience and larger proportion of diabetes patients the practice.

Adoption to guideline recommendations has been shown to be facilitated by the acquisition of the necessary knowledge and skills. High health costs for patients and practice, patient’s knowledge, expectations, compliance, motivation and support for recommendation, lack of materials, logistic support and time of health professionals, and high proportions of patients without insurance have been reported as barriers to guidelines adherence [16, 17]. Adherence to actions recommended in guidelines may require practice organization. Besides, adherence is facilitated when tools are in place to put the recommendations into practice [22]. A systematic review [17] reported a median adherence of 36% (Inter Quartile Range 30 to 56%) to recommendations from various guidelines. Our data reveal that adherence to all the recommendations was quite low since less than 50% responders did not implement a system to promote and monitor recommendations in their practice.

Our findings on the low adherence of the recommendation on screening and diagnosis may explain why two thirds of the diabetes population in Indonesian remain un-diagnosed [2]. The generally low adherence to the recommendations of the Indonesian guideline may partly explain the finding by Soewondo et al. that 68% of patients in Indonesia diagnosed with diabetes were in poor glycemic control [6].

Pattern of leakage

Based on a systematic review on the utilization of clinical guidelines [17] we expected to find a consistent pattern of ‘leakage’ , i.e. lower number of positive responders, over the four subsequent steps of the Pathman’s awareness-to-adherence model. In our study, adoption and adherence rates are generally progressively lower, except for the recommendations on diagnosis of diabetes and sulfonylurea treatment.

Our findings on the non-progressiveness of the recommendation on diagnosis of diabetes and sulfonylurea treatment deserve further consideration. As was stated previously, a majority of our responders believed that fasting and 2-hour post-prandial blood (plasma) glucose test are more appropriate than random blood (plasma) glucose in the diagnosis of diabetes in patients with classic diabetes symptoms. However, random blood glucose is more practical to be implemented in the practice so it is more adopted.

The Indonesian guideline recommends sulfonylurea as the drug of choice to manage hyperglycemia in normal and underweight type 2 diabetes patients. In all, 58% of our responders agree with this recommendation. In contrast to the Indonesian guidelines, the consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommends simultaneous initiation of metformin and lifestyle intervention at diagnosis [10]. Familiarity with this ADA/EASD recommendation may cause some uncertainty, but metformin and other classes of blood glucose–lowering medications are not generally available in primary health centers [23]. This may explain why agreement with sulfonylurea as recommended treatment is lower than its adoption.

Strengths and limitations of the study

Our study supports the usefulness of the awareness-to-adherence model and provides valuable information on the utilization of an important guideline in Indonesia. Still, some aspects of our study, notably the sampling method, response rate of the survey, missing data and the use of self-reporting questionnaire, need further consideration.

Obtaining representative samples from the large number of Indonesian GPs, exceeding 70,000, who are distributed over the archipelago possess challenges for our type of research.

Recruitment of responders among those attending a conference in Jakarta (capital city of Indonesia) was seen as more practical although it might not represent physicians who do not have opportunity to attend such meeting. However, our responders represent GPs from all parts of Indonesia. Our response rate is within the range of that of similar studies as reported by the systematic review of Mickan et al. [17].

Self-reporting is the most simple and inexpensive method of measuring adherence. However, it has several limitations including over-estimation due to recall bias and social desirability bias [24]. These drawbacks have been addressed through determination of specific time period in the questionnaire, assessment of specific behavior related to the recommendations, non-judgmental statements and confidentiality.

The awareness-to adherence model may help to identify GPs’ specific concerns with recommended practice changes. If uptake of a specific recommendation is low, qualitative approach to the concerns and barriers might be useful. Implementation of a quality assurance system which could further illustrate the care being received by diabetes patients in relation to the clinical outcomes is believed to be beneficial to promote adherence to guideline recommendations and increase the quality of diabetes care [25].

Conclusions

Our study shows that high awareness of the guideline does not always lead to adoption nor adherence to its recommendations. The production and dissemination of guidelines alone is not sufficient to ensure that research evidence gets into practice. Improvement of clinicians’ awareness of, agreement with, and adoption to guidelines need to be incorporated in to strategies to improve guideline adherence.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thanks Alvin Nursalim, Dicky Tahapary and Pamela Priyudha for their assistance during data collection. The contribution of the general practitioners of the Community Medicine Department of the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia during questionnaire development and testing was also greatly valued. We likewise appreciate the Indonesian Association of Family Practitioners (PDKI) and the Metabolic Endocrinology Division, Internal Medicine Department of the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia – Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital for giving access to the conference.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia
(2)
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht
(3)
Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia – Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital
(4)
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP) Faculty of Health Sciences, Bond University
(5)
Department Social Dentistry, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA)

References

  1. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H: Global prevalence of diabetes; estimates for the year 2000 and projection for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004, 27: 1047-1053. 10.2337/diacare.27.5.1047.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Mihardja L, Delima , Siswoyo H, Ghani L, Soegondo S: Prevalence and determinants of Diabetes Mellitus and Impaired Glucose Tolerance in Indonesia (A Part of Basic Health Research/Riskesdas). Acta Med Indones-Indones J Intern Med. 2009, 41 (4): 169-174.Google Scholar
  3. International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas. 2010, Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation, http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas, 5,Google Scholar
  4. American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2010. Diabetes Care. 2010, 33 (Suppl 1): S11-S61.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cockram C: The epidemiology of diabetes mellitus in the Asia-Pacific region. HKMJ. 2000, 6 (1): 43-52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Soewondo P, Soegondo S, Suastika K, Pranoto A, Soeatmadji D, Tjokroprawiro A: The DiabCare Asia 2008 study – Outcomes on control and complications of type 2 diabetic patients in Indonesia. Med J Indones. 2010, 19 (4): 235-244.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Indonesian Society of Endocrinology: Consensus on the Management and Prevention of Type 2 DM in Indonesia. 2011, Jakarta: Indonesian Society of EndocrinologyGoogle Scholar
  8. AACE Diabetes Mellitus Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Medical guidelines for clinical practice for the management of diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract. 2007, 13 (Suppl 1): 4-66.Google Scholar
  9. IDF Clinical Guidelines Task Force: Global Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes. 2005, Brussels: International Diabetes FederationGoogle Scholar
  10. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, Heine RJ, Holman RR, Sherwin R, Zinman B: Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009, 32: 193-203. 10.2337/dc08-9025.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Jiwa M, Meng X, Sriram D, Hughes J, Colagiuri S, Twigg S, Skinner T, Shaw T: The management of Type 2 diabetes: a survey of Australian general practitioners. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012, 95 (3): 326-332. 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.11.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sidorenkov G, Haaijer-Ruskamp F, de Zeeuw D, Denig P: A longitudinal study examining adherence to guidelines in diabetes care according to different definitions of adequacy and timeliness. PLoS One. 2011, 6 (9): e24278-10.1371/journal.pone.0024278.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Sriwijitkamol A, Moungngern Y, Vannaseang S: Attainment of American Diabetes Association clinical practice recommendations in 722 Thai type 2 diabetes patients. J Med Assoc Thai. 2011, 94 (Suppl 1): S159-S167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Oh S, Lee H, Chin H, Hwang J: Adherence to clinical practice guidelines and outcomes in diabetic patients. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011, 23 (4): 413-419. 10.1093/intqhc/mzr036.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosen B, Porath A, Pawlson L, Chassin M, Benbassat J: Adherence to standards of care by health maintenance organizations in Israel and the USA. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011, 23 (1): 15-25. 10.1093/intqhc/mzq065.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kenefick H, Lee J, Fleishman V: Improving Physicians Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines. 2008, Cambridge, New England: New England Healthcare InstituteGoogle Scholar
  17. Mickan S, Burls A, Glasziou P: Patterns of ‘leakage’ in the utilisation of clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Postgrad Med J. 2011, 87: 670-679. 10.1136/pgmj.2010.116012.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Pathman DE, Konrad T, Freed GL, Freeman VA, Koch GG: The awareness-to-adherence model of the steps to clinical guideline compliance; The case of pediatric vaccine recommendations. Med Care. 1996, 34: 873-889. 10.1097/00005650-199609000-00002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Heneghan C, Perera R, Mant D, Glasziou P: Hypertension guideline recommendations in general practice: awareness, agreement, adoption, and adherence. Br J Gen Pract. 2007, 57 (545): 948-952. 10.3399/096016407782604965.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR: Simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996, 49 (12): 1373-1379. 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Bovier PA, Sebo P, Abetel G, George F, Stalder H: Adherence to recommended standards of diabetes care by Swiss primary care physicians. Swiss Med Wkly. 2007, 137: 173-181.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Brouwers M, Kho ME, Browman GP, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Hanna S, Makarski J, on behalf of the AGREE Next Steps Consortium: AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Can Med Assoc J. 2010, 182: 839-842. 10.1503/cmaj.090449.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Widyahening IS, Soewondo P: Capacity for management of diabetes mellitus in primary health centres in Indonesia. J Indon Med Assoc. 2012, 62: 439-443.Google Scholar
  24. Nunes V, Neilson J, O’Flynn N, Calvert N, Kuntze S, Smithson H, Benson J, Blair J, Bowser A, Clyne W, Crome P, Haddad P, Hemingway S, Horne R, Johnson S, Kelly S, Packham B, Patel M, Steel J: Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Review for Medicines Adherence: Involving Patients in Decisions About Prescribed Medicines and Supporting Adherence. 2009, London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General PractitionersGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffin S, Kinmonth A: Systems for routine surveillance for people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1998, CD000541-1
  26. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/15/72/prepub

Copyright

© Widyahening et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

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 credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.