Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 52–55 | Cite as

Dispensing glucose test materials in Dutch community pharmacies

  • Michiel J. Storimans
  • Herre Talsma
  • Olaf H. Klungel
  • Cornelis J. de Blaey


Objective: To assess the proportion of diabetic patients who collect self-monitoring equipment for glucose testing in Dutch community pharmacies.

Methods: Data were used from the PHARMO-Record Linkage System, containing pharmacy dispensing records from 1991 to 1998. The study population consisted of patients who received at least two prescriptions of insulin and/or oral hypoglycemic agents. Information was collected on patient demographics, antidiabetic drug use and self-monitoring equipment (blood glucose meters and test strips). Type of diabetes was determined for all incident users of antidiabetic drugs.

Main outcome measure: The proportion of patients per community pharmacy, who were dispensed self-monitoring equipment at least once.

Results: The study population consisted of 11,358 diabetic patients. The number of incident patients was 5,050, of whom 91.7% had type 2 diabetes. Twenty-nine pharmacies were included. The mean proportion of patients per pharmacy who received test strips at least once was 30.1% (SD=6.7%), range 19–46%. The proportion of patients who were dispensed test strips was almost three times higher among type 1 than among type 2 patients (54% vs. 17%).

Conclusion: In comparison to other countries' published data, Dutch community pharmacies dispense relatively few glucose test materials to diabetic patients. There are substantial differences between pharmacies in dispensing test strips. Further research is needed into the determinants governing the use of test strips at both patient and pharmacy level.

Blood glucose Community pharmacy Diabetes mellitus Pharmaceutical care Pharmacy records Self-monitoring The Netherlands 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diab Care 2002; 25(1): 213–29.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gijsen R, Poos MJJC. [Background data on rank table] Achtergrondgegevens bij rangordetabellen. In: Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning, Nationaal Kompas Volksgezondheid, RIVM. 14 November 2002. Retrieved from on 10 March 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HAW, Matthews DR, Manley SE, Cull CA et al. Association of glycemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000; 321: 405–12.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group (DCCT). The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 977–86.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Diabetes Association: Tests of glycemia in diabetes. Diab Care 2002; 25(Suppl 1): S97–S9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EuroPharmForum. Improved quality in diabetes care: the pharmacist in St Vincent team: protocol and guidelines 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    FPZ-standaard diabetes mellitus type 2. [Pharmaceutical care standard diabetes mellitus type 2.] The Hague: Scientific Institute of Dutch Pharmacists, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Practice guidance for community pharmacists on the care of people with diabetes. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farmacie in cijfers: toename in gebruik hulpmiddelen. [Pharmacy in numbers: increasing use of medical aids.] Pharm Weekbl 2001; 136: 829.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herings R, de Boer A, Stricker B, Leufkens HG, Porsius A. Hypoglycaemia associated with use of inhibitors of angiotensin converting enzyme. Lancet 1995; 345: 1195–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rutten GEHM, Verhoeven S, Heine RJ, de Grauw WJC, Cromme PVM, Reenders K et al. Diabetes Mellitus Type 2. NHG-standaard (eerste herziening). [Dutch College of General Practitioners' practice guideline diabetes mellitus type 2 (first revision).] Huisarts Wet 1999; 42: 67–84.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans JM, Newton RW, Ruta DA, MacDonald TM, Stevenson RJ, Morris AD. Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in relation to glycaemic control: observational study with diabetes database. BMJ 1999; 319: 83–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karter AJ, Ackerson LM, Darbinian JA et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels and glycemic control: the Northern California Kaiser Permanente diabetes registry. Am J Med 2001; 111: 1–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coster S, Gulliford M, Seed P et al. Self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diab Med 2000; 17: 755–61.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruggiero L, Glasgow RE, Dryfoos JM, Rossi JS, Prochaska JO, Orleans CT et al. Diabetes self-management: self-reported recommendations and patterns in a large population. Diab Care 1997; 20: 568–76.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toljamo M, Hentinen M. Adherence to self-care and glycaemic control among people with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Adv Nurs 2001; 34: 780–6.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nettles A. User error in blood glucose monitoring. The National Steering Committee for Quality Assurance Report. Diab Care 1993; 16: 946–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kabadi UM, O'Connell KM, Johnson J, Kabadi M et al. The effect of recurrent practice at home on the acceptability of capillary blood glucose readings. Accuracy of self blood glucose testing. Diab Care 1994, 17: 1110–23.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bergenstal R, Pearson J, Cembrowski GS, Bina D, Davidson J, List S. Identifying variables associated with inaccurate self-monitoring of blood glucose: proposed guidelines to improve accuracy. Diab Educ 2000; 26: 981–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lutterman JA. Farmacotherapie bij diabetes mellitus: huidige situatie en toekomstverwachtingen. [Farmacotherapy in diabetes mellitus: current situation and prognoses.] In: Timmerman H, van den Berg Jelthe A, editors. Volksgezondheids Toekomstverkenning 2002. Geneesmiddelen nu en in de toekomst. [Public health prognosis 2002. Drugs now and in the future]. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: RIVM, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michiel J. Storimans
    • 1
    • 2
  • Herre Talsma
    • 1
  • Olaf H. Klungel
    • 1
  • Cornelis J. de Blaey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacotherapyUtrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS)UtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Scientific Institute Dutch Pharmacists (WINAp)The Netherlands

Personalised recommendations