Hintergrund In Deutschland wurden zwischen 22. März und 6. Mai 2020 und zwischen 13. Dezember 2020 und 30. Juni 2021 in sog. "Lockdowns" Kontaktbeschränkungen und weitere Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der COVID-19-Pandemie angeordnet. Mit diesen Maßnahmen waren vermutlich eine Verminderung der körperlichen Aktivität und eine Verringerung der Anzahl von Kontrollterminen, z.B. im Rahmen von Disease-Management-Programmen, verbunden. Daher könnten die Lockdowns zu einer Verschlechterung der glykämischen Kontrolle bei Menschen mit Typ-2-Diabetes geführt haben.

IntroductionGlycemic effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are controversial. In this long-term observation, we aimed (1) to analyze changes in HbA1c levels during lockdowns in Germany, and (2) to investigate whether diabetes medication, comorbidities, and sociodemographic data influenced these changes.Materials and methodsThis cohort study observed 1,089 patients aged ≥18 years over the years 2019 to 2021. Patients were recruited from 14 physicians specialized on diabetes. As dependent variable, 7,987 HbA1c values were analyzed by multivariable linear regression adjusted for random effects of physicians and patients.ResultsPatients had a median age of 68 (60/76) years and 623 (57.2%) were male. Before the pandemic, median HbA1c level (in %) was 6.9 (6.3/7.7). Average HbA1c level increased during first lockdown (0.21,0.11/0.31,p < 0.001), after first lockdown (0.23,0.18/0.28,p < 0.001), during second lockdown (0.40,0.33/0.47,p < 0.001) and after second lockdown (0.27,0.18/0.36,p < 0.001). The increase of HbA1c levels was more pronounced in male patients (0.08,0.01/0.15,p = 0.019), if patients did not have German as native language (0.12,0.01/0.23,p = 0.041) and if they were widowed (0.19,0.05/0.32,p = 0.008). End organ damages (0.12,0.01/0.23,p = 0.039), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD; 0.23,0.10/0.36,p = 0.001) and cardiovascular events (0.25,0.10/0.40,p = 0.001) as well as oral medication (0.09,0.03/0.15,p = 0.002), intermediate- or long-acting insulins (0.24,0.16/0.32,p < 0.001), and fast-acting or mixed insulins (0.30,0.23/0.36,p < 0.001) were also related to a greater increase in HbA1c levels.ConclusionBoth lockdowns resulted in a significant increase in HbA1c levels. In particular, patients with ASCVD, cardiovascular events, and insulin therapy appear to be at risk for worsening glycemic control in crisis and thus require special medical attention.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04821921).

Short-term studies reported improved glycemic control and a decrease in eHbA1c (estimated hemoglobin A1c) in patients with type 1 diabetes during COVID-19 lockdown, but long-term changes are unknown. Therefore, the main objectives are to (1) analyze whether laboratory-measured HbA1c changed during and after two lockdowns and (2) investigate potential variables influencing HbA1c change. In this cohort study, 291 adults with type 1 diabetes were followed over 3 years including the prepandemic phase and two lockdowns. The data from medical records and validated questionnaires assessing health literacy (HLS-EU-Q16), diabetes self-management (DSMQ-R27), general self-efficacy (GSE), and social support (F-SOZU-K14) were used to analyze associations with HbA1c levels (N = 2370) by performing multivariable linear regressions. The median age was 54 (38–63) years and 159 (54.6

BackgroundAs a result of climate change, exposure to high temperatures is becoming more common, even in countries with temperate climates. For patients with chronic diseases, heat poses significant health risks. Empowering patients is a crucial element in protecting the population from the adverse effects of heat. In this context, self-reports of protective behavior are often used to gain a mutual understanding of patients’ issues. However, the extent to which self-reported behavior is associated with health complaints remains unclear. ObjectiveThis study aims to describe the association between light to moderate heat and health complaints in everyday life, and to analyze whether self-reported protective behavior and related psychosocial factors are linked to these complaints. MethodsWe conducted a pilot cohort study using internet climate data merged with an online survey of patients with chronic diseases recruited through general practitioner practices. Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older and had at least one chronic disease. The heat was modeled using temperature and humidity data. Health complaints were assessed through up to 7 follow-up evaluations on the hottest day of each week during the observation period. Data were analyzed using 3 nested models with mixed effects multivariable linear regression, adjusting for random effects at the climate measuring station and participant levels. Model 1 included heat exposure, sociodemographic data, and chronic diseases. Model 2 added protective behavior and health literacy, while model 3 incorporated self-efficacy and somatosensory amplification (ie, the tendency to catastrophize normal bodily sensations such as insect bites). ResultsOf the 291 eligible patients, 61 (21.0%) participated in the study, providing 294 observations. On average, participants were 61 (SD 14) years old, and 31 (51%) were men. The most prevalent conditions were cardiovascular diseases (n=23, 38%) and diabetes mellitus (n=20, 33%). The most commonly reported symptoms were tiredness/fatigue (232/294 observations, 78.9%) and shortness of breath (142/294 observations, 48.3%). Compared with temperatures of 27°C or lower, a heat index between over 27°C and 32°C (β=1.02, 95% CI 0.08-1.96, P=.03) and over 32°C (β=1.35, 95% CI 0.35-2.35, P=.008) were associated with a higher symptom burden. Lower health literacy (β=–0.25, 95% CI –0.49 to –0.01, P=.04) and better self-reported protective behavior (β=0.65, 95% CI 0.29-1.00, P<.001) were also linked to increased symptom burden but lost statistical significance in model 3. Instead, lower self-efficacy (β=–0.39, 95% CI –0.54 to –0.23, P<.001) and higher somatosensory amplification (β=0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.28, P=.001) were associated with a higher symptom burden. ConclusionsCompared with colder weather, light and moderate heat were associated with more severe health complaints. Symptom burden was lower in participants with higher self-efficacy and less somatosensory amplification. Self-reported protective behavior was not linked to a lower symptom burden. Instead, we found that patients who tended to catastrophize normal bodily sensations reported both better protective behavior and a higher symptom burden simultaneously. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05961163; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05961163

Hintergrund: Der erste COVID-19-Lockdown führte bei Menschen mit Typ-2-Diabetes zum Anstieg des Langzeitblutzuckers HbA1c [1]. Bei Menschen mit Typ-1-Diabetes wurde jedoch eine HbA1c-Senkung beobachtet [2]. Die von Kurzzeitstudien analysierten HbA1c-Werte basierten dabei allerdings auf Daten der kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung, die von im Labor gemessenen HbA1c-Werten (Goldstandard) erheblich abweichen können [3]. Zudem wurden in die Analysen selten zusätzliche Einflussgrößen einbezogen.

IntroductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were anxious about a coronavirus infection due to the high infection rate and the mortality risk associated with the disease. Fear of COVID-19 might have influenced patients' utilisation of medical services, even if it meant that a postponed therapy had severe consequences. Our aims were to analyse (a) to what extent fear of COVID-19 contributes to forgone consultations, (b) if patient characteristics, health literacy and social support influence the effect of fear of COVID-19 on the utilisation behaviour and (c) whether interactions between these possible predictor variables are responsible for a higher extent of avoided consultations due to fear of COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional observational study in an emergency department. The study was based on personal standardized interviews of patients. The interviews took place between July 15 and August 5, 2020. Patients over the age of 18 were included if there was no urgent need for treatment on the day of the interview, no severe functional limitations, sufficient knowledge of German, ability to consent and health problems requiring treatment between March 13 and June 13, 2020. Differences between patient subgroups were described and analysed using the t-test and chi2 test. Data were analysed by logistic regression including socio-demographic data, health literacy and social support assessed by standardised instruments. Additionally, we assessed interactions between possible predictor variables by a descriptive tree analysis.Results103 patients participated in personal standardized interviews. 46 patients (44.6%) reported that at least one necessary consultation did not take place in the observation period. Among those, 29 patients (63.0%) avoided consultations due to fear of COVID-19. Women had 3.36 times higher odds (95% confidence interval: 1.25 to 9.04, p = 0.017) for avoiding a consultation due to fear of COVID-19. There were no other statistically significant predictors in our analysis.DiscussionAlmost half of the required consultations did not take place. Avoidance of consultations needs to be closely monitored during the pandemic. Policy makers as well as health care providers should give consideration to the collateral effects of COVID-19 and COVID-19-related reactions of patients, especially women.ConclusionIn the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians should ensure that their patients take advantage of necessary consultations in order to avoid negative effects of a delayed examination or treatment. Particular attention should be paid to anxious female patients. Studies are needed to analyse the association between health literacy, social support and avoidance of consultations triggered by fear of COVID-19.

Purpose:Health literacy (HL) intervention could be a potential prevention strategy to reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome (MS), but the association between low HL and MS is controversial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether low HL is associated with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, considering them as one cluster. Methods:We used data from the Hamburg Diabetes Prevention Survey, a population-based cross-sectional study in Germany. The 1349 eligible subjects were 18-60 years old. The European Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16) was used to assess HL. Depending on the reported number of metabolic syndrome conditions (CMS), four groups were categorized as follows: "0", any "1", any "2" and "3" CMS. Ordered logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between HL level (independent variable) and the reported number of CMS (dependent variable) adjusted for age, gender and education. Results:63.9% of subjects (n=862) reported having "0", 25.7% (n=346) only "1", 8.2% (n=111) only "2" and 2.2% (n=30) "3" of the three CMS. In the group with sufficient HL, rates of "1," "2," or "3" CMS were lower than in the group with problematic or inadequate HL. Subjects with inadequate HL showed a 1.62-fold higher risk of having a higher number of CMS than subjects with sufficient HL (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.31). The risk increased with each life year (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06), and was higher in persons with low education (OR 2.89; 95% CI 2.08 to 4.01) than in highly educated persons. Women showed lower risk (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91) than men. Conclusion:Lower HL was associated with a higher number of MS conditions. Our findings suggest that HL intervention on health-promoting behaviors could help reduce MS risk in people with limited HL.

Background Low health literacy is believed to be associated with behaviours that increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. But there is limited knowledge on the relation between health literacy (HL) and diabetes risk, and whether improving HL could be a potential prevention strategy. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to examine the link between HL and diabetes risk among non-diabetic adults. Methods We used data from the Hamburg Diabetes Prevention Survey, a population-based cross-sectional study in Germany. One thousand, two hundred and fifty-five non-diabetic subjects aged 18–60 years were eligible. The German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS, ranging 0 to 123 points) was used to determine the individual risk of type 2 diabetes. The short version of the European Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16, ranging 0 to 16 points) was applied to assess the individual self-reported HL. Subjects were asked to self-estimate their diabetes risk, which was then compared with the calculated GDRS. Descriptive statistics were calculated to investigate group differences in the GDRS and self-estimated diabetes risk. Linear as well as logistic regression models were performed to analyse potential influencing variables of the GDRS as well as incorrect self-estimated diabetes risk. In three nested statistical models for each outcome, these analyses were adjusted for age, gender, educational level and the presence of chronic conditions. Results According to the criteria of the GDRS, 996 (79.4%) subjects showed “low risk”, 176 (14.0%) “still low risk”, 53 (4.2%) “elevated risk”, and 30 (2.4%) “high to very high risk” to develop type 2 diabetes within the next 5 years. In the statistical models including all control variables, subjects with “inadequate HL” scored 2.38 points higher on the GDRS (95% CI 0.378 to 4.336; P = 0.020) and had a 2.04 greater chance to estimate their diabetes risk incorrectly (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.14; P = 0.001) compared to those with “sufficient HL”. Conclusion The risk of type 2 diabetes is increased in people with inadequate self-reported HL. People with high diabetes risk and inadequate HL might be provided with educational programs to improve diabetes knowledge and reduce behavioural risk factors.

Objectives The aims of our study were to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on primary care in Germany regarding the number of consultations, the prevalence of specific reasons for consultation presented by the patients, and the frequency of specific services performed by the GP. Methods We conducted a longitudinal observational study based on standardised GP interviews in a quota sampling design comparing the time before the COVID-19 pandemic (12 June 2015 to 27 April 2017) with the time during lockdown (21 April to 14 July 2020). The sample included GPs in urban and rural areas 120 km around Hamburg, Germany, and was stratified by region type and administrative districts. Differences in the consultation numbers were analysed by multivariate linear regressions in mixed models adjusted for random effects on the levels of the administrative districts and GP practices. Results One hundred ten GPs participated in the follow-up, corresponding to 52.1% of the baseline. Primary care practices in 32 of the 37 selected administrative districts (86.5%) could be represented in both assessments. At baseline, GPs reported 199.6 ± 96.9 consultations per week, which was significantly reduced during COVID-19 lockdown by 49.0% to 101.8 ± 67.6 consultations per week ( p < 0.001). During lockdown, the frequency of five reasons for consultation (-43.0% to -31.5%) and eleven services (-56.6% to -33.5%) had significantly decreased. The multilevel, multivariable analyses showed an average reduction of 94.6 consultations per week ( p < 0.001). Conclusions We observed a dramatic reduction of the number of consultations in primary care. This effect was independent of age, sex and specialty of the GP and independent of the practice location in urban or rural areas. Consultations for complaints like low back pain, gastrointestinal complaints, vertigo or fatigue and services like house calls/calls at nursing homes, wound treatments, pain therapy or screening examinations for the early detection of chronic diseases were particularly affected.