Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 15, Issue 11, pp 797–804

Perceived access problems among patients with diabetes in two public systems of care

Original Articles


OBJECTIVE: We examined the prevalence of access problems among public clinic patients after participating in trials of automated telephone disease management with nurse follow-up.

DESIGN: Randomized trial.

SETTING: General medicine clinics of a county health care system and a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.

PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred seventy adults with diabetes using hypoglycemic medication were enrolled and randomized; 520 (91%) provided outcome data at 12 months.

INTERVENTION: Biweekly automated telephone assessments with telephone follow-up by diabetes nurse educators.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At follow-up, patients reported whether in the prior 6 months they had failed to obtain each of six types of health services because of a financial or nonfinancial access problem. Patients receiving the intervention were significantly less likely than patients receiving usual care to report access problems (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.97). The risk of reporting access problems was greater among county clinic patients than VA patients even when adjusting for their experimental condition, and socioeconomic and clinical risk factors (AOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.53). County patients were especially more likely to avoid seeking care because of a worry about the cost (AOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.48 to 5.37).

CONCLUSIONS: Many of these public sector patients with diabetes reported that they failed to obtain health services because they perceived financial and nonfinancial access problems. Automated telephone disease management calls with telephone nurse follow-up improved patients’ access to care. Despite the impact of the intervention, county clinic patients were more likely than VA patients to report access problems in several areas.

Key words

diabetes telephone health services accessibility socioeconomic factors 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352:837–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet. 1998;352:854–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ. 1998;317:703–13.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:S32-S41.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, et al. A nurse-coordinated intervention for primary care patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: impact on glycemic control and health-related quality of life. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aubert RE, Herman WH, Waters J, et al. Nurse care management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:605–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weinberger M, Tierney WM, Booher P, Katz BP. Can the provision of information to patients with osteoarthritis improve functional status? A randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1989;32:1577–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Debusk RF, Houston Miller N, Superko HR, et al. A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:721–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wasson J, Gaudette C, Whaley F, et al. Telephone care as a substitute for routine clinic follow-up. JAMA. 1992;267:1788–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kobak KA, Taylor LV, Dottle SL, et al. A computer-administered telephone interview to identify mental disorders. JAMA. 1997;278:905–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobak KA, Taylor LV, Dottle SL, et al. Computerized screening for psychiatric disorders in an outpatient community mental health clinic. Psychiatr Serv. 1997;48:1048–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leirer VO, Morrow DG, Pariante G, et al. Increasing influenza vaccination adherence through voice mail. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1989;37:1147–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Linkens RW, Dini EF, Watson G, et al. A randomized trial of the effectiveness of computer-generated telephone messages in increasing immunization visits among preschool children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1994;148:908–14.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stehr-Green PA, Dini EF, Lindegren ML, Patriarca PA. Evaluation of telephone computer-generated reminders to improve immunization coverage at inner-city clinics. Public Health Rep. 1993;108:426–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lieu TA, Capra AM, Makol J, Black SB, Shinefield HR. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of letters, automated telephone mesages, or both for underimmunized children in a health maintenance organization. Pediatrics. 1998;101:E3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedman RH, Kazis LE, Jette A, et al. A telecommunications system for monitoring and counseling patients with hypertension. Impact on medication adherence and blood pressure control. Am J Hypertens. 1996;9(4 Pt 1):285–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tanke ED, Leirer VO. Automated telephone reminders in tuberculosis care. Med Care. 1994;32:380–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gaskin DJ, Hadley J. Identify urban safety net hospitals and the populations they serve. Abstract Book of the Association for Health Services Research. 1997;14:62–3. Abstract.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piette JD, Weinberger M, McPhee SJ, Mah CA, Kraemer FB, Crapo LM. Can automated calls with nurse follow-up improve self-care and glycemic control among vulnerable patients with diabetes? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Med. 2000;108:20–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Piette JD, Weinberger M, McPhee SJ. The effect of automated calls with telephone nurse follow-up on patient-centered outcomes of diabetes care: a randomized controlled trial. Med Care. 2000;38:218–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hafner-Eaton C. Physician utilization disparities between the uninsured and insured: comparisons of the chronically ill, acutely ill, and well nonelderly populations. JAMA. 1993;269:787–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Newacheck PW. Access to ambulatory care for poor persons. Health Serv Res. 1988;23:401–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woloshin S, Bickell NA, Schwartz LM, et al. Language barriers in medicine in the United States. JAMA. 1995;273:724–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV, et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care program. JAMA. 1999;281:545–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perez-Stable EJ, Napoles-Springer A, Miramontes JM. The effects of ethnicity and language on medical outcomes of patients with hypertension or diabetes. Med Care. 1997;35:1212–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Piette JD. Moving diabetes management from clinic to community: development of a prototype based on automated voice messaging. Diabetes Educ. 1997;23:672–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brislin RW, Lonner WJ, Thorndike EM. Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York: Wiley; 1973.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Wasson JH, Renfrew RA, Welch HG. Setting the revisit interval in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:230–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brook RH, Ware JE Jr, Rogers WH, et al. Does free care improve adults’ health? Results from a randomized controlled trial. New Engl J Med. 1983;309:1426–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lurie N, Ward NB, Shapiro MF, Brook RH. Termination from Medi-Cal: does it affect health? New Engl J Med. 1984;311:480–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lurie N, Ward NB, Shapiro MF, Gallego C, Vaghaiwalla R, Brook RH. Termination from Medi-Cal benefits: a follow-up study one year later. New Engl J Med. 1986;314:1266–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Burgess JF, DeFiore DA. The effect of distance to VA facilities on the choice and level of utilization of VA outpatient services. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39:95–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Holloway JJ, Medendorp SV, Bromberg J. Risk factors for early readmission among veterans. Health Serv Res. 1990;25(1 Pt 2):213–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Piette JD, Moos RH. The influence of distance on ambulatory care use, death, and readmission following a myocardial infarction. Health Serv Res. 1996;31:573–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ahluwalia JS, McNagny SE, Rask KJ. Correlates of controlled hypertension in indigent, inner-city hypertensive patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:7–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lederle FA, Parenti CM. Prescription drug costs as a reason for changing physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:162–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jain S, Avins AL, Mendelson T. Preventive health services and access to care for male veterans compared to their spouses. Western J Med. 1998;168:499–503.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Piette JD. Satisfaction with care among patients with diabetes in two public health care systems. Med Care. 1999;37:538–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Starfield B. Access—perceived or real, and to what? JAMA. 1995;274:346–7. Editorial.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Health Care EvaluationVA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park Division (152)Menlo Park

Personalised recommendations