Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 200–204 | Cite as

Patient education to users of oral hypoglycemic agents: the perspective of Dutch community pharmacists

  • J.W. Timmer
  • P.A.G.M. de Smet
  • J. Schuling
  • T.F.J. Tromp
  • L.T.W. de Jong‐van den Berg


The purpose of this study was to indicate which patient education activities directed at users of oral hypoglycemic agents are desirable in Dutch community pharmacies and to explore which preconditions should be considered when implementing the desired activities. A qualitative study was conducted with a panel composed of seven pharmacists and seven technicians with considerable experience in giving advice to people with diabetes mellitus type 2. A consensus method was used, which consisted of a written questionnaire and a feedback discussion, to determine which activities were considered desirable and to identify which other health care providers should be involved. The way these activities should be implemented was explored by a focus-group discussion. The following goals of patient education activities were studied: 1) adherence to the dosage regimen, 2) adherence to lifestyle advices,3) gaining awareness of effects and 4) self-monitoring. According to the members of the panel, patient education activities should be directed primarily at stimulating adherence to the dosage regimen, increasing awareness of side effects and improving the correct technical use of blood glucose meters. Activities directed at lifestyle advice seemed to be less desirable to the pharmacy staff. Preconditions that should be considered when implementing these activities were structural cooperation with GPs and diabetic nurses and specialization of tasks of pharmacy technicians. Our results indicate that deepening of existing tasks, such as stimulating adherence to the dosage regimen is desirable in developing patient education activities at users of oral hypoglycemic agents.

Adherence Community pharmacy Diabetes mellitus type 2 General practitioner Implementation Oral hypoglycemic agents Patient education Pharmaceutical care Side effects Pharmacy technician 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van den Brink G, Schwartzenberg RRH, Hoeve LLH, Porsius AJ. The use of hypoglycaemic and cardiovascular drugs in 582 patients with diabetes mellitus. Pharm World Sci 1993;15:128-31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Post D, Gubbels JW. Diabetes mellitus is meer dan suikerziekte. Pharm Weekbl 1992;127:282-7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rutten GEHM, Heine RJ. Veranderende zorg voor patiënten met diabetes type 2 in Nederland. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1996;140:2398-402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Dam HA, Crebolder HFJM, van der Grinten RF. Metabole regulatie, functionele toestand en kwaliteit van leven bij type-2-diabeten. Huisarts Wet 1995;13:618-22.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rutten GEHM. NHG-Standaard Diabetes Mellitus type 11: actualiseren of niet? Huisarts Wet 1994;37:153-9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coene EH. Ontregelingen. In: Coene EH, editor. Zorgmap Diabetes. Amsterdam: Stichting Augustus/DVN, 1995:40-88.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Veneman TF, Erkelens DW. Verminderd gewaarworden van hypoglykemie bij patienten met diabetes mellitus type 2. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1998;142:836-39.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paes AHP, Bakker A, Soe-Agnie CJ. Impact of Dosage Frequency on Patient Compliance. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1512-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goddijn PPM, Meyboom-de Jong B, Feskens EJM, van Ballegooie E, Bilo HJG. Verschillen tussen patienten met diabetes mellitus type 2 bij wie wel en bij wie niet wordt overgeschakeld op insulinetherapie in de tweede lijn. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1998;142:1023-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rutten GEHM, Van Eijk J, De Nobel E, Beek M, van der Velden H. Feasibility and Effects of a Diabetes Type 2 Protocol with Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring in General Practice. Family Practice 1990;7:273-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pennings-van der Eerden L. Self-Care behaviour in the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus. 1992; University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaber LA, Halapy F, Femet M, Tummalapalli S, Diwakaran H. Evaluation of a pharmaceutical care model on diabetes management. Ann Pharmacother 1996;30:238-43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Gier JJ. De innovatieve praktijk ontwikkelt zich verder. Integratie van zorgverlening. Pharm Weekbl 1997;132:1830-8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venema FJ. Farmaceutische patientenzorg zaak van het gehele apotheekteam. Pharm Weekbl 1998;133:738-9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hepler CD. Pharmaceutical Care. Pharm World Sci 1996;18:233-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tully MP, Hassell K, Noyce PR. Advice-giving in community pharmacies in the UK. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997;2:38-50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blom ATG. Developing patient education in community pharmacy. 1996; University Utrecht.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kerssens JJ, Andela MG, Friele RD. Apotheek scoort naar oordeel patient beter in bejegening dan in informatieverschaffing. Pharm Weekbl 1997;132:1432-9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caleo S, Benrimoj S, Collins D, Lauchlan R, Stewart K. Clinical evaluation of community pharmacists' interventions. Int J Pharm Pract 1996;4:221-7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kocken G, Etienne R. Farmacotherapie-overleg belandt in nieuwe fase. Pharm Weekbl 1998;133:104-7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Vries CS, Denig P, Vos R, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. The evaluation of communication processes in peer review groups: development and validation of a questionnaire. Med Care 1998; in press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Smet PGAM, Timmer JW. Diabetes mellitus type 2. WINAP ontwikkelt farmaceutisclie zorgstandaard. Pharm Weekbl 1998;133:40-5.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rogers EM. Innovativeness and Adopter Categories. In: Rogers EM, editor. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: The Free Press,1995:252-80.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zyzanski SJ, McWhinney IR, Blake R, Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Qualitative Research: Perspectives on the Future. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publication, 1992:231-48.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int J Pharm Pract 1996;4:67-74.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Gier JJ. Subprotocol Voorlichting Diabetes Mellitus type 11. In: de Gier JJ, editor. Zorgprotocollen. Houten: Stichting Health Base, 1996:262-73.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN. The Focus Group Moderator Conducting the Focus Group. In:Clark KA, editor. Focus groups: theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990:69-102.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bokken G. De samenwerking tussen huisarts en specialist. Een model. Huisarts Wet 1995; 38:506-512.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koch KE, Weeks A. Clinically oriented phamacy technicians to augment clinical services. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1998;55:1375-81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    anonymous. KNMP, editor. Nederlandse Apotheeknorm. 1996; Den Haag: KNMP. 1 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.W. Timmer
  • P.A.G.M. de Smet
  • J. Schuling
  • T.F.J. Tromp
  • L.T.W. de Jong‐van den Berg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations