Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17761996›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007

Self monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: longitudinal qualitative study of patients' perspectives.

Elizabeth Peel, Margaret Douglas, Julia Lawton

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 202 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The experiences and perspectives of people with gout on urate self-monitoring.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth PeelPsychology, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET. e.a.peel@aston.ac.uk
Margaret Douglas
Julia Lawton
Aston University · GBNHS Lothian · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore views of patients with type 2 diabetes about self monitoring of blood glucose over time.

designLongitudinal, qualitative study.

settingPrimary and secondary care settings across Lothian, Scotland.

participants18 patients with type 2 diabetes.

main outcome measuresResults from repeat in-depth interviews with patients over four years after clinical diagnosis.

resultsAnalysis revealed three main themes-the role of health professionals, interpreting readings and managing high values, and the ongoing role of blood glucose self monitoring. Self monitoring decreased over time, and health professionals' behaviour seemed crucial in this: participants interpreted doctors' focus on levels of haemoglobin A(1c), and lack of perceived interest in meter readings, as indicating that self monitoring was not worth continuing. Some participants saw readings as a proxy measure of good and bad behaviour-with women especially, chastising themselves when readings were high. Some participants continued to find readings difficult to interpret, with uncertainty about how to respond to high readings. Reassurance and habit were key reasons for continuing. There was little indication that participants were using self monitoring to effect and maintain behaviour change.

conclusionsClinical uncertainty about the efficacy and role of blood glucose self monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes is mirrored in patients' own accounts. Patients tended not to act on their self monitoring results, in part because of a lack of education about the appropriate response to readings. Health professionals should be explicit about whether and when such patients should self monitor and how they should interpret and act upon the results, especially high readings.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Health PersonnelHumansLife StyleLongitudinal StudiesProfessional RoleBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID17761996
PMCPMC1971180
OpenAlexW2094440630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.