Objective To explore the intention of chronic disease patients to use internet hospitals and its influencing factors based on the theory of planned behavior.Methods A convenience sampling survey was conducted using a questionnaire based on theory of planned behavior from July to October 2024.Structural equation modeling was employed to analyze the determinants of behavioral intention.Results The mean behavioral intention score was(96.25±11.62),indicating a moderate-to-high level.Structural equation modeling revealed significantly positive effects of subjective norms(β=0.696,P＜0.05)and perceived behavioral control(β=0.175,P＜0.05)on behavioral intention,while significant negative effects were observed for information risk perception(β=-0.286,P＜0.05)and medical risk perception(β=-0.221,P＜0.05).Conclusion Chronic disease patients demonstrate moderate-to-high intention to use internet hospitals.Key determinants of behavioral intention include subjective norms,perceived behavioral control,information risk perception,and medical risk perception.

Objective To explore the intention of chronic disease patients to use internet hospitals and its influencing factors based on the theory of planned behavior.Methods A convenience sampling survey was conducted using a questionnaire based on theory of planned behavior from July to October 2024.Structural equation modeling was employed to analyze the determinants of behavioral intention.Results The mean behavioral intention score was(96.25±11.62),indicating a moderate-to-high level.Structural equation modeling revealed significantly positive effects of subjective norms(β=0.696,P＜0.05)and perceived behavioral control(β=0.175,P＜0.05)on behavioral intention,while significant negative effects were observed for information risk perception(β=-0.286,P＜0.05)and medical risk perception(β=-0.221,P＜0.05).Conclusion Chronic disease patients demonstrate moderate-to-high intention to use internet hospitals.Key determinants of behavioral intention include subjective norms,perceived behavioral control,information risk perception,and medical risk perception.

Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods:This study was a retrospective cohort study. The subjects were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were hospitalized in 13 3A-level general hospitals in Shandong Province from September 2018 to December 2021. According to the type of basal insulin used, the patients were divided into insulin degludec group and insulin glargine U100 group. The basic information and laboratory test results in patients in the 2 groups were collected, the differences of fasting blood glucose level and incidence of hypoglycemia between the 2 groups were compared. The patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the 2 groups were selected and their blood glucose fluctuations were compared.Results:A total of 1 152 patients were entered in the study, including 552 patients in the insulin degludec group and 600 patients in the insulin glargine U100 group. The difference in the basic conditions in patients in the 2 groups was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). After treatment, the fasting blood glucose levels in patients in the 2 groups were lower than those before treatment, with statistically significant differences [10.2 (8.8, 12.5) mmol/L vs. 7.5 (6.6, 8.7) mmol/L, Z=-19.443, P<0.001; 10.0 (8.6, 11.7) mmol/L vs. 7.8 (6.6, 9.0) mmol/L, Z=-15.449, P<0.001], but the difference in fasting blood glucose levels between the 2 groups after treatment was not statistically significant ( Z=-1.427, P>0.05). The incidence of hypoglycemia in the insulin degludec group was lower than that in the insulin glargine U100 group [1.09% (6/552) vs. 2.83% (17/600), Z=4.481, P=0.032]. The intraday blood glucose standard deviation, maximum blood glucose fluctuation range, postprandial blood glucose fluctuation range, and average blood glucose fluctuation range in patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the insulin degludec group were significantly lower than those in the insulin glargine U100 group [(1.7±0.6) mmol/L vs. (2.4±1.0) mmol/L, (4.5±1.6) mmol/L vs. (6.7±2.9) mmol/L, (1.8±1.0) mmol/L vs. (3.3±1.2) mmol/L, (2.9±1.3) mmol/L vs. (4.6±2.1) mmol/L; all P<0.001]. Conclusion:The efficacy of insulin degludec in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus is equivalent to that of insulin glargine U100, but the risk of hypoglycemia and blood glucose fluctuation is lower.

Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods:This study was a retrospective cohort study. The subjects were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were hospitalized in 13 3A-level general hospitals in Shandong Province from September 2018 to December 2021. According to the type of basal insulin used, the patients were divided into insulin degludec group and insulin glargine U100 group. The basic information and laboratory test results in patients in the 2 groups were collected, the differences of fasting blood glucose level and incidence of hypoglycemia between the 2 groups were compared. The patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the 2 groups were selected and their blood glucose fluctuations were compared.Results:A total of 1 152 patients were entered in the study, including 552 patients in the insulin degludec group and 600 patients in the insulin glargine U100 group. The difference in the basic conditions in patients in the 2 groups was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). After treatment, the fasting blood glucose levels in patients in the 2 groups were lower than those before treatment, with statistically significant differences [10.2 (8.8, 12.5) mmol/L vs. 7.5 (6.6, 8.7) mmol/L, Z=-19.443, P<0.001; 10.0 (8.6, 11.7) mmol/L vs. 7.8 (6.6, 9.0) mmol/L, Z=-15.449, P<0.001], but the difference in fasting blood glucose levels between the 2 groups after treatment was not statistically significant ( Z=-1.427, P>0.05). The incidence of hypoglycemia in the insulin degludec group was lower than that in the insulin glargine U100 group [1.09% (6/552) vs. 2.83% (17/600), Z=4.481, P=0.032]. The intraday blood glucose standard deviation, maximum blood glucose fluctuation range, postprandial blood glucose fluctuation range, and average blood glucose fluctuation range in patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the insulin degludec group were significantly lower than those in the insulin glargine U100 group [(1.7±0.6) mmol/L vs. (2.4±1.0) mmol/L, (4.5±1.6) mmol/L vs. (6.7±2.9) mmol/L, (1.8±1.0) mmol/L vs. (3.3±1.2) mmol/L, (2.9±1.3) mmol/L vs. (4.6±2.1) mmol/L; all P<0.001]. Conclusion:The efficacy of insulin degludec in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus is equivalent to that of insulin glargine U100, but the risk of hypoglycemia and blood glucose fluctuation is lower.