HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Harris, M. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Harris, M. I. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Frequency of Blood Glucose Monitoring in Relation to Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
OBJECTIVE—The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between blood glucose level, measured as HbA_1c, and frequency of self-monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Daily self-monitoring is believed to be important for patients treated with insulin or oral agents to detect asymptomatic hypoglycemia and to guide patient and provider behavior toward reaching blood glucose goals.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A national sample of patients with type 2 diabetes was studied in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Data on therapy for diabetes, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and HbA_1c values were obtained by structured questionnaires and by clinical and laboratory assessments.

RESULTS—According to the data, 29% of patients treated with insulin, 65% treated with oral agents, and 80% treated with diet alone had never monitored their blood glucose or monitored it less than once per month. Self-monitoring at least once per day was practiced by 39% of those taking insulin and 5–6% of those treated with oral agents or diet alone. For all patients combined, the proportion of patients who tested their blood glucose increased with an increasing HbA_1c value. However, when examined by diabetes therapy category, there was little relationship between HbA_1c value and the proportion testing at least once per day or the proportion testing at least once per week.

CONCLUSIONS—In this cross-sectional study of patients with type 2 diabetes, the increase in frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose with increasing HbA_1c value was associated with the higher proportion of insulin-treated patients in higher HbA_1c categories. Within diabetes therapy categories, the frequency of self-monitoring was not related to glycemic control, as measured by HbA_1c level.

Abbreviations: ADA, American Diabetes Association • NHANES III, third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Self-monitoring of blood glucose is believed to be a useful component of patient self-care practices. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) position is that daily self-monitoring is especially important for those treated with insulin or oral agents to monitor for and prevent asymptomatic hypoglycemia (1). Self-monitoring is also suggested for these patients to facilitate reaching blood glucose goals, although the role of self-monitoring in diet-treated patients with type 2 diabetes is not specified by the ADA (1). Given the two-fold objective of monitoring glucose levels at both the low and high ends of the spectrum, it might be expected that monitoring might be more frequent for those with lower and those with higher blood glucose values compared with patients in the intermediate range. We investigated the relationship between blood glucose level, measured as HbA_1c, and the frequency of self-monitoring in a nationwide sample of patients with type 2 diabetes.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Data were analyzed from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), in which questionnaire, clinical, and laboratory data were obtained for a representative sample of adults with type 2 diabetes. NHANES III was conducted from September 1988 to October 1994 and included a stratified probability sample of the civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. population (2). Participants were interviewed in their homes and were given a standardized set of examinations and laboratory measurements in a mobile examination center. There were 16,993 participants aged 25 years, of whom 1,608 had been diagnosed with diabetes by a physician before the survey. Women with diabetes diagnosed only during pregnancy (n = 105) and subjects with type 1 diabetes, defined as those with age at diagnosis <30 years who had continuous insulin use since diagnosis of diabetes (n = 23), were excluded from analysis. The remaining 1,480 subjects were considered to have type 2 diabetes.

Information was obtained by structured questionnaires on diabetes therapy and blood glucose self-monitoring. Measurement of HbA_1c was made during a separate clinical examination in which 88.2% of the interviewed subjects participated (3). HbA_1c was measured by a high-performance liquid chromatographic assay as used in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. The upper limit of normal for HbA_1c in the assay system is 6.1%, defined as the mean + 2 SDs (5.27 + 0.86%) for the group of people with fasting plasma glucose <110 mg/dl and 2-h postchallenge glucose <140 mg/dl. This value (6.1%) is virtually identical to the upper limit of normal (6.0%) recommended by the ADA using the same assay system (1). Statistical analyses were performed using SAS (Statistical Analysis System; Cary, NC) with appropriate survey sampling weights. Logistic regression was performed using SUDAAN (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC) to assess the relationship between HbA_1c and self-monitoring in those treated with insulin, oral agents, or diet alone.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
The median age of the patients was 62.5 years. About 44% were male, 26% were of minority race or ethnicity, 55% had a high school education or more, 93% had health insurance, 96% had a regular source of primary medical care, and 85% had at least two physician visits in the 12 months before the survey.

Table 1 shows HbA_1c values and the frequency of blood glucose self-monitoring, according to diabetes therapy. One-fourth of patients treated with insulin and most patients treated with oral agents or diet alone had never monitored their blood glucose or monitored it less than once per month. Self-monitoring at least once per day was practiced by 39% of those taking insulin and was infrequent for those treated with oral agents or diet alone.

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1 — Distribution of patients with type 2 diabetes according to HbA1c decile. Each decile contains 10% of the population of all patients. The mean ± SD HbA1c value for nondiabetic subjects was 5.27 ± 0.43%. A: Percentage of patients in each decile of HbA1c who were treated with insulin, oral agents, or diet alone. B: Percentage of patients in each decile of HbA1c who self-monitored their blood glucose. Dashed lines are linear regression lines. R2 = 0.81, one or more tests per week; R2 = 0.23, one or more tests per day; R2 = 0.03, two or more tests per day.

Figure 2 illustrates the frequency of self-monitoring by patients for those treated with insulin, oral agents, or diet alone in each quintile of the HbA_1c distribution. There was little relationship between HbA_1c value and the proportion testing at least once per week for those treated with insulin or oral agents, although, for those treated with diet alone, the test frequency was higher in the highest two quintiles of HbA_1c (comprising 14% of diet-treated patients). The proportion testing at least once per day was lower in the middle quintile for those taking insulin, but there was no relationship to HbA_1c for those treated with oral agents or diet alone. The proportion testing at least twice per day was highest in the lowest quintile for those taking insulin (8% of insulin-treated patients) and was low throughout the spectrum of HbA_1c for those taking oral agents or treated with diet alone.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2 — Percentage of patients with type 2 diabetes in quintiles of the HbA1c distribution who self-monitor their blood glucose, according to diabetes therapy. The mean ± SD HbA1c for nondiabetic subjects is 5.27 ± 0.43%. In logistic regression, there was no relationship between HbA1c value and self-monitoring in any diabetes therapy group (P > 0.5). A: Insulin-treated patients. B: Oral agent–treated patients. C: Diet-treated patients. , Self-monitoring test one or more times per week; , self-monitoring test one or more times per day. , self-monitoring test two or more times per day.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
The data for all patients combined indicate that self-monitoring of blood glucose is more common as HbA_1c increases, suggesting that patients with poorer glycemic control have a greater tendency to self-monitor. However, the increase in frequency of self-monitoring with increasing HbA_1c value is related to the higher proportion of insulin-treated patients, who are more likely to self-monitor, in higher HbA_1c categories. Within each diabetes therapy category there was little relationship between the frequency of testing and HbA_1c value. Indeed, half of patients with HbA_1c >8%, the ADA value at which intensification of glucose control is recommended (1), monitored less than once per week.

Prior studies have shown that self-monitoring is more common in Caucasian patients than in African-American or Mexican-American patients (3,4). Those with more education, those who have had a diabetes patient education class, and those who have frequent physician visits are more likely to practice self-monitoring (4). However, self-monitoring was not related to higher income or to having health insurance (4).

The relationship between HbA_1c value and self-monitoring frequency was investigated in a study in England of 290 type 2 diabetic patients treated with insulin; no association was found (5). A study in Missouri of 61 type 2 diabetic patients who self-monitored found no difference in mean GHb values based on the frequency of testing (6). Among 115 patients treated with oral agents at a Veterans Administration Medical Center in Arizona, glucose control was independent of the number of blood glucose test strips dispensed (7). Some reports have questioned the efficacy of self-monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes (8,9). In contrast, the importance of self-monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes is more certain, and an increased frequency of self-monitoring is generally associated with decreased HbA_1c values for these patients (5,10).

Self-monitoring is considered to be a tool to guide patient and physician action with respect to changes in diet, physical activity, and use of antihyperglycemic medication. Both patient and physician action are needed to change diabetes management when hyperglycemia is evident. Patients with differing levels of insulin resistance and ß-cell reserve may respond differently to self-monitoring and changes in diabetes control regimens. The true impact of self-monitoring could be assessed in a randomized clinical trial with pre-established guidelines for how glucose monitoring results would be used to facilitate achievement of glycemic targets.

Adequate co-involvement of the medical care team, the patient, and the family appears to be important in effective management of diabetes. Clinical trials have demonstrated that health care systems that utilize nurses and other nonphysician personnel as case managers and those with telephone-based contact are efficacious in improving glycemic control, blood pressure, and lipid levels (11–14). Key elements in the success of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial were the frequent clinic visits involving nurses and dietitians and the extensive telephone access to these health care practitioners. These elements were afforded to patients in the intensive intervention group, and HbA_1c remained low throughout the study (15). Availability of social support, such as that provided by nurse case-managers, appears to be a major factor that contributes to adherence by diabetic patients to such behaviors as following a diabetic diet, weight loss, taking prescribed medications, checking blood glucose, and checking feet (16). In a logistic regression analysis of the NHANES III type 2 diabetic patients, the HbA_1c level was not significantly associated with having a primary source of ambulatory medical care, the number of physician visits per year, having any type of health insurance, or having private insurance (17).

The NHANES III is a cross-sectional study, and it cannot be determined from this study whether self-monitoring influenced blood glucose control. Furthermore, the study was conducted during the period when Medicare reimbursed the cost of blood glucose monitors and test strips for monitors only for patients treated with insulin. Although self-testing of blood glucose does not require monitors, it is likely that the lower frequency of testing by patients treated with oral agents and diet alone was a result, in part, of the lack of reimbursement. In 1998, this policy was changed to reimburse patients for these items, regardless of whether the patient is treated with insulin. In a survey conducted in 1997–1999, the proportion of all diabetic patients who self-monitored at least once per day was 44% (18), which was higher than that seen in NHANES III.

	FOOTNOTES

 
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Maureen I. Harris, NIDDK/NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd, Rm. 695, MSC5460, Bethesda, MD 20892-5460. E-mail: mh63q{at}nih.gov.

Received for publication 29 September 2000 and accepted in revised form 30 January 2001.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 

1. American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 24(Suppl. 1):S33–S43, 2001
   
2. Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, Eberhardt MS, Goldstein DE, Little RR, Wiedmeyer HM, Byrd-Holt DD: Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in U.S. adults: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–94. Diabetes Care 21:518–524, 1998[Abstract]
   
3. Harris MI, Eastman RC, Cowie CC, Flegal KM, Eberhardt MS: Racial and ethnic differences in glycemic control of adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 22:403–408, 1999[Abstract]
   
4. Harris MI, Cowie CC, Howie LJ: Self-monitoring of blood glucose by adults with diabetes in the United States population. Diabetes Care 16:1116–1123, 1993[Abstract]
   
5. Evans JMM, Newton RW, Ruta DA, MacDonald TM, Stevenson RJ, Morris AD: Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in relation to glycemic control: observational study with diabetes database. Br Med J 319:83–86, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Oki JC, Flora DL, Isley WL: Frequency and impact of SMBG on glycemic control in patients with NIDDM in an urban teaching hospital. Diabetes Educ 23:419–424, 1997
   
7. Rindone JP, Austin M, Luchesi J: Effect of home blood glucose monitoring on the management of patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in the primary care setting. Am J Manag Care 3:1335–1338, 1997[Medline]
   
8. Faas A, Schellevis FG, Van Eijk JT: The efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose in NIDDM subjects: a criteria-based literature review. Diabetes Care 20:1482–1486, 1997[Abstract]
   
9. Gallichan M: Self-monitoring of glucose by people with diabetes: evidence based practice. Br Med J 314:964–967, 1997[Free Full Text]
   
10. Strowig SM, Raskin P: Improved glycemic control in intensively treated type 1 diabetic patients using blood glucose meters with storage capability and computer-assisted analysis. Diabetes Care 21:1694–1698, 1998[Abstract]
    
11. Aubert RE, Herman WH, Waters J, Moore W, Sutton D, Peterson BL, Bailey CM, Koplan JP: Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 129:605–612, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
12. O’Connor PJ, Rush WA, Peterson J, Morben P, Cherney L, Keogh C, Lasch S: Continuous quality improvement can improve glycemic control for HMO patients with diabetes. Arch Fam Med 5:502–506, 1996[Abstract]
    
13. Peters AL, Davidson MB: Application of a diabetes managed care program: the feasibility of using nurses and a computer system to provide effective care. Diabetes Care 21:1037–1043, 1998[Abstract]
    
14. Wasson J, Gaudette C, Whaley F, Sauvigne A, Baribeau P, Welch HG: Telephone care as a substitute for routine clinic follow-up. JAMA 267:1788–1793, 1992[Abstract]
    
15. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group: Resource utilization and costs of care in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes Care 18:1468–1478, 1995[Abstract]
    
16. Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, Ordway L, DiMatteo MR, Kravitz RL: Antecedents of adherence to medical recommendations: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. J Behav Med 15:447–468, 1992[Medline]
    
17. Harris MI: Health care and health status and outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 23:754–758, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Levels of diabetes-related preventive-care practices—United States, 1997–1999. Morb Mort Weekly Report 49:954–958, 2000
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. McAndrew, S. H. Schneider, E. Burns, and H. Leventhal Does Patient Blood Glucose Monitoring Improve Diabetes Control?: A Systematic Review of the Literature The Diabetes Educator, November 1, 2007; 33(6): 991 - 1010. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. R Heller Self monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes BMJ, July 21, 2007; 335(7611): 105 - 106. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Davis, D. G. Bruce, and T. M.E. Davis Is Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Appropriate for All Type 2 Diabetic Patients?: The Fremantle Diabetes Study Diabetes Care, August 1, 2006; 29(8): 1764 - 1770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Garcia, A. Garcia, F. J. Dallo, A. L. Salcedo Rocha, C. Colunga Rodriguez, N. Perez, R. D. Baer, and S. C. Weller The relative effect of self-management practices on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetic patients in Mexico Chronic Illness, June 1, 2006; 2(2): 77 - 85. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. D. Saudek, R. L. Derr, and R. R. Kalyani Assessing Glycemia in Diabetes Using Self-monitoring Blood Glucose and Hemoglobin A1c JAMA, April 12, 2006; 295(14): 1688 - 1697. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Delamater Improving Patient Adherence Clin. Diabetes, April 1, 2006; 24(2): 71 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. C. Moreland, L. K. Volkening, M. T. Lawlor, K. A. Chalmers, B. J. Anderson, and L. M. B. Laffel Use of a blood glucose monitoring manual to enhance monitoring adherence in adults with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med, March 27, 2006; 166(6): 689 - 695. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. B. Davidson Counterpoint: Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetic Patients not Receiving Insulin: A waste of money Diabetes Care, June 1, 2005; 28(6): 1531 - 1533. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Rhee, W. Slocum, D. C. Ziemer, S. D. Culler, C. B. Cook, I. M. El-Kebbi, D. L. Gallina, C. Barnes, and L. S. Phillips Patient Adherence Improves Glycemic Control The Diabetes Educator, March 1, 2005; 31(2): 240 - 250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. H. Skelly, T. A. Arcury, B. M. Snively, R. A. Bell, S. L. Smith, L. K. Wetmore, and S. A. Quandt Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose in a Multiethnic Population of Rural Older Adults With Diabetes The Diabetes Educator, January 1, 2005; 31(1): 84 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. Murata, R. M. Hoffman, J. H. Shah, C. S. Wendel, and W. C. Duckworth A Probabilistic Model for Predicting Hypoglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Diabetes Outcomes in Veterans Study (DOVES) Arch Intern Med, July 12, 2004; 164(13): 1445 - 1450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. Bowker, C. G. Mitchell, S. R. Majumdar, E. L. Toth, and J. A. Johnson Lack of insurance coverage for testing supplies is associated with poorer glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes Can. Med. Assoc. J., July 6, 2004; 171(1): 39 - 43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Weinstock, G. Hawley, D. Repke, B. L. Feuerstein, C. T. Sawin, and L. M. Pogach Pharmacy Costs and Glycemic Control in the Department of Veterans Affairs Diabetes Care, May 1, 2004; 27(suppl_2): B74 - B81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. L. Briggs and S. Cornell Self-monitoring Blood Glucose (SMBG): Now and the Future Journal of Pharmacy Practice, February 1, 2004; 17(1): 29 - 38. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Vincze, J. C. Barner, and D. Lopez Factors Associated With Adherence to Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Among Persons With Diabetes The Diabetes Educator, January 1, 2004; 30(1): 112 - 125. [PDF]

				K. Mulcahy, M. Maryniuk, M. Peeples, M. Peyrot, D. Tomky, T. Weaver, and P. Yarborough Diabetes Self-Management Education Core Outcomes Measures The Diabetes Educator, September 1, 2003; 29(5): 768 - 803. [PDF]

				G. H. Murata, J. H. Shah, R. M. Hoffman, C. S. Wendel, K. D. Adam, P. A. Solvas, S. U. Bokhari, and W. C. Duckworth Intensified Blood Glucose Monitoring Improves Glycemic Control in Stable, Insulin-Treated Veterans With Type 2 Diabetes: The Diabetes Outcomes in Veterans Study (DOVES) Diabetes Care, June 1, 2003; 26(6): 1759 - 1763. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Jones, L. Edwards, T. M. Vallis, L. Ruggiero, S. R. Rossi, J. S. Rossi, G. Greene, J. O. Prochaska, and B. Zinman Changes in Diabetes Self-Care Behaviors Make a Difference in Glycemic Control: The Diabetes Stages of Change (DiSC) study Diabetes Care, March 1, 2003; 26(3): 732 - 737. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Zgibor and D. Simmons Barriers to Blood Glucose Monitoring in a Multiethnic Community Diabetes Care, October 1, 2002; 25(10): 1772 - 1777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Nicolucci, M. Franciosi, F. Pellegrini, and G. De Berardis Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Can Be Effective in Type 2 Diabetes Only If It Serves a Clearly Identified Purpose: Response to Court Diabetes Care, July 1, 2002; 25(7): 1256 - 1256. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B.L. G. Nyomba, L. Berard, and L. J. Murphy The Cost of Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Is an Important Factor Limiting Glycemic Control in Diabetic Patients Diabetes Care, July 1, 2002; 25(7): 1244 - 1245. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. O. Marcus Outpatient Technologies for the Treatment and Prevention of Diabetes Diabetes Spectr, April 1, 2002; 15(2): 78 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. B. Sacks, D. E. Bruns, D. E. Goldstein, N. K. Maclaren, J. M. McDonald, and M. Parrott Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus Clin. Chem., March 1, 2002; 48(3): 436 - 472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. M. Benjamin Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The Basics Clin. Diabetes, January 1, 2002; 20(1): 45 - 47. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Z. T. Bloomgarden Treatment Issues in Type 1 Diabetes Diabetes Care, January 1, 2002; 25(1): 230 - 238. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Blonde, B. H. Ginsberg, S. Horn, I. B. Hirsch, B. James, K. Mulcahy, A. Nettles, R. Smout, and H. Wright Frequency of Blood Glucose Monitoring in Relation to Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Diabetes Care, January 1, 2002; 25(1): 245 - 246. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Franciosi, F. Pellegrini, G. De Berardis, M. Belfiglio, D. Cavaliere, B. Di Nardo, S. Greenfield, S. H. Kaplan, M. Sacco, G. Tognoni, et al. The Impact of Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring on Metabolic Control and Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: An urgent need for better educational strategies Diabetes Care, November 1, 2001; 24(11): 1870 - 1877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Kennedy Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes: Time for evidence of efficacy Diabetes Care, June 1, 2001; 24(6): 977 - 978. [Full Text]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Harris, M. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Harris, M. I. Social Bookmarking                What's this?