Clinical Inertia on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Study in Primary Healthcare Facilities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66266/inajemd.v2i1.36Keywords:
Type 2 diabetes mellitus, glycemic control, HbA1c, clinical inertia, primary healthcareAbstract
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Indonesia continues to rise, with projections estimating 28.6 million cases by 2045. This increase poses significant health and economic burdens, especially due to complications resulting from poor glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of T2DM patients achieving optimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≤7%) and to identify factors related to clinical inertia in primary healthcare facilities in Malang, Indonesia. A cross-sectional study design was used, incorporating secondary data from 2256 PROLANIS patients' medical records (2020) and primary data from 580 questionnaires administered to doctors, healthcare providers, and patients. Only 32% of patients achieved HbA1c ≤7%, with higher levels of HbA1c observed among male patients and those with abnormal lipid profiles and microalbuminuria. Metformin alone was associated with the highest rate of glycemic control, while combination regimens such as metformin + sulfonylurea were linked to lower control. Logistic regression identified age, sex, lipid profile, and microalbuminuria as significant factors affecting glycemic control. From the provider side, good clinical practices were associated with adherence to guidelines, moderate workloads, and sufficient patient education. However, variability in guideline availability and lack of standardized protocols in Prolanis facilities posed barriers. Patient knowledge did not correlate significantly with treatment adherence, although most patients had moderate understanding of their condition. These findings underscore the need for standardized care guidelines and targeted interventions at the patient, provider, and system levels to improve glycemic outcomes and reduce diabetes-related complications in primary care settings.
Downloads
References
1. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 10th ed. 2021
2. Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, Pinkepank M, Ogurtsova K, Duncan BB, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2022 Jan;183:109119.
3. Hidayat B, Ramadani RV, Rudijanto A, Soewondo P, Suastika K, Siu Ng JY. Direct Medical Cost of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Its Associated Complications in Indonesia. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2022 Mar;28:82–9.
4. Stolar M. Glycemic Control and Complications in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The American Journal of Medicine. 2010 Mar;123(3):S3–11.
5. Bryśkiewicz ME, Majkowska L. [Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as a standard diagnostic criterium for diabetes?]. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2011 Feb;30(176):150–4.
6. Cholil AR, Lindarto D, Pemayun TGD, Wisnu W, Kumala P, Puteri HHS. DiabCare Asia 2012: diabetes management, control, and complications in patients with type 2 diabetes in Indonesia. Med J Indones. 2019 May 8;28(1):47–56.
7. Soetedjo NNM, McAllister SM, Ugarte-Gil C, Firanescu AG, Ronacher K, Alisjahbana B, et al. Disease characteristics and treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus attending government health services in Indonesia, Peru, Romania and South Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 2018 Oct;23(10):1118–28.
8. Okemah J, Peng J, Quiñones M. Addressing Clinical Inertia in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review. Adv Ther. 2018 Nov;35(11):1735–45.
9. Khunti K, Davies MJ. Clinical inertia—Time to reappraise the terminology? Primary Care Diabetes. 2017 Apr;11(2):105–6.
10. Andreozzi F, Candido R, Corrao S, Fornengo R, Giancaterini A, Ponzani P, et al. Clinical inertia is the enemy of therapeutic success in the management of diabetes and its complications: a narrative literature review. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2020 Dec;12(1):52.
11. Edelman SV, Polonsky WH. Type 2 Diabetes in the Real World: The Elusive Nature of Glycemic Control. Diabetes Care. 2017 Nov 1;40(11):1425–32.
12. Yokoyama H, Oishi M, Takamura H, Yamasaki K, Shirabe S ichiro, Uchida D, et al. Large-scale survey of rates of achieving targets for blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipids and prevalence of complications in type 2 diabetes (JDDM 40). BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2016 Oct;4(1):e000294.
13. Cambra K, Galbete A, Forga L, Lecea O, Ariz MJ, Moreno-Iribas C, et al. Sex and age differences in the achievement of control targets in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a population-based study in a South European region. BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Dec;17(1):144.
14. G Duarte F, da Silva Moreira S, Almeida M da CC, de Souza Teles CA, Andrade CS, Reingold AL, et al. Sex differences and correlates of poor glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Brazil and Venezuela. BMJ Open. 2019 Mar;9(3):e023401.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 InaJEMD - Indonesian Journal of Endocrinology Metabolic and Diabetes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the Indonesian Journal of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes (InaJEMD) the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
© Indonesian Journal of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes (InaJEMD). Published by the Indonesian Society of Endocrinology (PERKENI).
