Acceptance of Knowledge to Food Glycemic Index and Dietary Adjustment in Diabetic Patients
摘要
BACKGROUND: Glycemic index (GI) is a physiological index of carbohydrate food. It has been found out in epidemiological studies that GI is useful in controlling and preventing some chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the acceptance and practical significance of GI knowledge in diabetic patients by comparing with the traditional education with food exchange list (EEL) as the main material. DESIGN: A comparative observational test. SETTING: Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two diabetic patients volunteered to join in the study were selected from the Department Endocrinology of Beijing No. 6 Hospital from October 2000 to February 2002, including 36 males and 36 female of 10-70 years old with an average age of 58 years. METHODS: The 72 diabetic patients were randomly assigned to two groups: ①GI group which received GI-based nutrition education; ②FEL group receiving FEL-based nutrition education. They were educated for 5 months by means of classes, personal education and consultation by telephone. The changes of knowledge, food selection and blood glucose in the diabetic patients were observed before and after education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes of the awareness of nutrition education, fasting blood glucose (FBG) and 2-hour postprandial blood glucose (2hPBG) before and after education. Results: All the 72 diabetic patients were involved in the analysis of results. ①The correct answering rates after education were obviously higher than that before education (P＜0.01). Before education, the correct rates of answers to GI questions in the GI group were lower than the correct rates of answers to FEL questions in the FEL group (0 vs. 6.5%, P＜0.01). After education, the correct rates in the 61 group were higher than those in the FEL group (92.2% vs. 79.4%, P＜0.01); whereas there were no significant differences in the average corr