PubMed1996
The Kissingen Diabetes Intervention Study (KID) evaluated 1050 diabetic patients of the German Federal Insurance for Salaried Employees' Institution (BfA) admitted for inpatient rehabilitation. A single-center prospective, longitudinal study collected data concerning baseline characteristics of patient cohort, socioeconomic factors and mode of intervention at the time of admission, discharge and outcome 6 and 12 months after discharge with consecutively obtained random tests. This cohort of patients is especially interesting for aspects of health policy because it is composed of rather young diabetics engaged in professional work. The data suggest that on the one hand considerably fewer type I diabetics than type II diabetics are married, but that on the other hand constant relationships are equally common in both groups when not considering the marital status. 70% of all diabetics have regular working hours, only 10% of the type II diabetics and negligible 3.9% of the type 1 diabetics work nightshifts. Nevertheless, 29.4% of the type I diabetics and 36.4% of the type II diabetics were unfit for work for at least 4 weeks in the 6 months prior to admission. Only 35.5% of all diabetics see their doctor once or twice monthly. The disease was first diagnosed by the general practitioner in 70% of all cases. Thorough information concerning the disease was provided only in 33.7% of type II diabetics and 26.1% of type I diabetics. 50.6% of type I diabetics and 68.4% of type II diabetics did not receive any education during the all important first year after diagnosis. Most of the diabetic education which had taken place was provided by general hospitals but also by specialized diabetes hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals. 65.6% of all type II diabetics do not monitor urine glucose and those who do so, monitor only once to twice weekly or less. Fortunately 96.3% of all type I diabetics monitor blood glucose, but only 41.0% of them monitor as frequently as is appropriate. 28.3% receive material for monitoring glucose levels only after asking for this. In 32% of the type II diabetics monitoring urine glucose, the general practitioner does not discuss the results with them. Regular controls of glycolysated hemoglobin is part of the diabetic management in 84.4% of all type I diabetics, but carried out in only 34.9% of all type II diabetics, among which the checking of fasting glucose dominates laboratory controls with 50.9%. However, blood lipids are monitored in half of the patients. Huge deficits have been found in the monitoring of urinary albumin excretion in type I diabetics, but especially in type II diabetics. Fear of the future and depression are the predominant strains in everyday life for type I diabetics as well as for type II diabetics. Next most important is the fear of hypoglycemias for type I diabetics, who also feel significantly more restricted in leisure time activities than type II diabetics do. No difference was found between the two groups concerning the demands of treatment. Differences were marked in that more type I than type II diabetics complain of strain in professional life due to their disease, and that a higher proportion of type II diabetics feel impaired by physical complaints (higher incidence of multimorbidity) and consider their relationships more strained by the diabetes than type I diabetics. Surprisingly, problems with accepting the disease and problems in the doctor-patient relationship were of similarly low importance in both groups. We will soon report the changes of the parameters discussed here found after inpatient rehabilitation with intensive diabetic education, promotion of physical activities and psychological measures.