Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19811624›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2009

Interdisciplinary diabetes care teams operating on the interface between primary and specialty care are associated with improved outcomes of care: findings from the Leuven Diabetes Project.

Liesbeth Borgermans, Geert Goderis, Carine Van Den Broeke, Geert Verbeke, An Carbonez, Anna Ivanova, Chantal Mathieu, Bert Aertgeerts, Jan Heyrman, Richard Grol

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Barriers and Facilitators to Workforce Changes in Integrated Care.International journal of integrated care · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. IMPROVEMENTS IN METABOLIC CONTROL IN ADULTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES FOLLOWING REFERRAL TO A DIABETES CENTER, 2005-2010.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2016
    Article
  19. Observational
  20. Poor glycemic control as a reason for referral of diabetes patients to specialists in Israel.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Liesbeth BorgermansDepartment of General Practice, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. liesbeth.borgermans@med.kuleuven.be
Geert Goderis
Carine Van Den Broeke
Geert Verbeke
An Carbonez
Anna Ivanova
Chantal Mathieu
Bert Aertgeerts
Jan Heyrman
Richard Grol
KU Leuven · BERadboud University Nijmegen · NLStatistics Belgium · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex, progressive disease which requires a variety of quality improvement strategies. Limited information is available on the feasibility and effectiveness of interdisciplinary diabetes care teams (IDCT) operating on the interface between primary and specialty care. A first study hypothesis was that the implementation of an IDCT is feasible in a health care setting with limited tradition in shared care. A second hypothesis was that patients who make use of an IDCT would have significantly better outcomes compared to non-users of the IDCT after an 18-month intervention period. A third hypothesis was that patients who used the IDCT in an Advanced quality Improvement Program (AQIP) would have significantly better outcomes compared to users of a Usual Quality Improvement Program (UQIP).

methodsThis investigation comprised a two-arm cluster randomized trial conducted in a primary care setting in Belgium. Primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 120) and their patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 2495) were included and subjects were randomly assigned to the intervention arms. The IDCT acted as a cornerstone to both the intervention arms, but the number, type and intensity of IDCT related interventions varied depending upon the intervention arm.

resultsFinal registration included 67 PCPs and 1577 patients in the AQIP and 53 PCPs and 918 patients in the UQIP. 84% of the PCPs made use of the IDCT. The expected participation rate in patients (30%) was not attained, with 12,5% of the patients using the IDCT. When comparing users and non-users of the IDCT (irrespective of the intervention arm) and after 18 months of intervention the use of the IDCT was significantly associated with improvements in HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol, an increase in statins and anti-platelet therapy as well as the number of targets that were reached. When comparing users of the IDCT in the two intervention arms no significant differences were noted, except for anti-platelet therapy.

conclusionIDCT's operating on the interface between primary and specialty care are associated with improved outcomes of care. More research is required on what team and program characteristics contribute to improvements in diabetes care.

trial registrationNTR 1369.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamSpecializationBelgiumContinuity of Patient CareDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansInterprofessional RelationsPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID19811624
PMCPMC2762969
OpenAlexW2155040488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.