18 1
p ro
vin g K
n o
w le
d g
e O f T
yp e 2 D
ia b
ete s M
ell itu
s P at
ie n
ts O
n O ra
l H yp
o g
ly ca
em ic
A g
en ts
Table 3. Socio-demographic Characteristics of All Samples of Studied Population in Hilir Perak
Centre Hospital
Health clinics p-value
Baseline hospital
vs health
Month Baseline
November 2006
Post-intervention 1
May 2007
Post-intervention 2 August 2007
Baseline
November 2006
Post-intervention 1
May 2007
Post-intervention 2
August 2007
n=150 n=106
p-value n=151
p-value n=152
n=70 p-value
n=93 p-value
Mean age in years SD
59.639.68 57.8211.52 0.174
56.429.97 0.005
57.2310.37 57.6310.01 0.787
57.1210.51 0.936
0.030 Gender, n
• Male
6342.0 5047.2
0.488 6341.7
0.945 6039.5
2332.9 0.425
2628.0 0.090
0.741 •
Female 8758.0
5652.8 8858.3
9260.5 4767.1
6772.0 Ethnic, n
• Malay
7046.7 5148.1
0.919 6241.1
0.387 10971.7
4868.6 0.750
7277.4 0.402
0.001 •
Chinese 4530.0
2321.7 0.181
3120.5 0.079
95.9 710.0
0.416 1516.1
0.017 0.001
• Indian
3523.3 3230.2
0.278 5838.4
0.007 3422.4
1521.4 0.986
66.5 0.002
0.950 Educational level, n
• Primary
and none 9563.3
5652.8 0.120
10066.2 0.686
10871.1 4767.1
0.665 7176.3
0.449 0.191
• Secondary and higher
5536.7 5047.2
5133.8 4428.9
2332.9 2223.7
Duration of illness, n • ≤5 years
6442.7 6763.2
0.002 8355.0
0.043 10065.8
4767.1 0.964
5357.0 0.213
0.001 • 6-10 years
5033.3 2422.6
0.086 3724.5
0.118 3523.0
1622.9 0.886
2628.0 0.475
0.062 • ≥11 years
3624.0 1514.2
0.074 3120.5
0.558 1711.2
710.0 0.975
1415.0 0.493
0.005 No. of comorbidities, n
• No comorbid
2718.0 2119.8
0.839 159.9
0.064 5133.6
4260.0 0.001
3638.7 0.496
0.003 • Has
comorbids 12382.0
8080.2 13690.1
10166.4 2840.0
5761.3 No. of OHA, n
• 1 OHA 5134.0
2725.5 0.186
3019.9 0.008
6844.7 3245.7
0.993 4043.0
0.895 0.073
• 1 OHA 9966.0
7974.5 12180.1
8455.3 3854.3
5357.0 All calculations of P values were using Z test Epicalc 2000 comparing two proportions
182
Improving Knowledge Of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients On Oral Hypoglycaemic Agents
increase in Chinese patients sampled in P2. There was also a reduction in sampling of solely diabetics and it was statistically significant in P2.
As a summary, gender wise, educational level and number of OHA consumed does not affect the knowledge of the patient in Health Clinics.
From the formulated questionnaire used in this study, for questions pertaining knowledge on OHA, each question carries one mark should the
patient managed to answer at least more than 50 correctly. There were a total of seven major questions pertaining knowledge on OHA. Hence, total
full marks of seven. From the formulated questionnaire used in this study, patients were labeled as having good knowledge only if they scored more
than 3 out of 7 marks.
5.2 Patients Knowledge
Table 4 showed distribution of patients with good knowledge on OHA. From the beginning, it could be seen that patients in hospital and health clinics had a
significant difference in baseline knowledge. Therefore, it was wise to compare these two centers separately.
Generally, both hospital and health clinics showed statistical improvement of knowledge throughout the study. In hospital, there was significant improvement
of knowledge after four months of intervention, and further improved after seven months of continuous intervention. However, the increase from May to August was
found to be not statistically significant.
In health clinics, the improvement had always been better sustained statistically significant throughout the study. As a conclusion, this intervention benefited
patients in both centers in general.
Table 5 showed individual areas of knowledge on OHA among patients in outpatient department, Hospital Teluk Intan. There were seven aspects of knowledge that were
evaluated. namely the name, physical properties, dosage, method of consumption, frequency, action if missed a dose and correct side effects of OHA.
Among these seven areas, only questions pertaining to action if missed a dose and side effects of OHA showed statistical improvement after intervention for both
samplings. Statistical significant improvement were noted for question which looking into correct action if missed a dose for patients who consume more than
one OHA. However, the improvement between first and second post intervention sampling was not significant statistically.
18 3
p ro
vin g K
n o
w le
d g
e O f T
yp e 2 D
ia b
ete s M
ell itu
s P at
ie n
ts O
n O ra
l H yp
o g
ly ca
em ic
A g
en ts
Table 4. Distribution of Patients with Good knowledge on OHA Score 3 Out of 7 Questions
Center
Baseline Post
intervention May 2007 P1
p-value Comparison
between baseline and
P1 Post
intervention August 2007
P2 p-value
Comparison between
baseline and P2
p-value Baseline
Hospital vs Health
p- value Comparison
between P1 and P2
Hospital n
150 106
0.013 151
0.001 0.004
0.140 No. of patients
3926.0 4441.5
7851.7 Health
n 152
70 0.001
93 0.001
0.001 No. of patients
1912.5 3752.9
4851.6 Calculated using Epicalc 2000 comparing of two proportions
Table 5. Individual areas of knowledge on OHA among Patients in Out Patient Department, Hospital Teluk Intan
Patient Knowledge No. of
OHA Baseline
Post intervention May P1 Post intervention August P2
p-value
Comparison between
P1 and P2
n n
p-value n
p-value
Correct name of OHA 1 OHA
50 8.0
27 14.8
0.580 30
10 0.919
0.331 1 OHA
100 9.0
79 10.1
0.990 121
8.3 0.963
0.784 Correct physical
properties of OHA 1 OHA
50 92.0
27 92.6
0.720 30
96.7 0.721
0.232 1 OHA
100 88.0
79 86.1
0.875 121
90.9 0.629
0.315 Correct dosage of
OHA 1 OHA
50 4.0
27 7.4
0.916 30
6.7 1.000
0.974 1 OHA
100 4.0
79 5.1
0.982 121
6.6 0.546
0.817 Correct frequency of
OHA 1 OHA
50 64.0
27 77.8
0.323 30
83.3 0.621
0.344 1 OHA
100 71.0
79 65.8
0.562 121
58.7 0.078
0.238 Correct method of
consumption of OHA 1 OHA
50 70.0
27 77.8
0.643 30
73.3 0.949
0.500 1 OHA
100 52.0
79 55.7
0.732 121
57.0 0.541
0.937 Correct action if
missed a dose 1 OHA
50 40.0
27 63.0
0.091 30
60.0 0.133
0.722 1 OHA
100 41.0
79 64.6
0.003 121
64.5 0.001
0.908 Correct side effects
of OHA 1 OHA
50 2.0
27 14.8
0.090 30
43.3 0.001
0.001 1 OHA
100 9.0
79 25.3
0.006 121
48.8 0.001
0.001 Comparison between baseline and P1 using Z test Epicalc comparing two proportions
Comparison between baseline and P2 using Z test Epicalc comparing two proportions Comparison between P1 and P2 using Z test Epicalc comparing two percentages
