Trial reportThe American journal of managed care2010
Leveling the field: addressing health disparities through diabetes disease management.
Trial report in The American journal of managed care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying Implementation Mapping to Expand a Care Coordination Program at a Federally Qualified Health Center.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Gender disparities in clinical practice: are there any solutions? Scoping review of interventions to overcome or reduce gender bias in clinical practice.International journal for equity in health · 2020Article
- The impact of primary care: a focused review.Scientifica · 2012Review
- Factors Influencing the Increasing Disparity in LDL Cholesterol Control Between White and Black Patients With Diabetes in a Context of Active Quality Improvement.American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical QualityArticle
- Update on health literacy and diabetes.The Diabetes educatorReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the relationships among patient characteristics, labor inputs, and improvement in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) level in a successful primary care-based diabetes disease management program (DDMP). STUDY
designWe performed subanalyses to examine the relationships among patient characteristics, labor inputs, and improvement in A1C level within a randomized controlled trial. Control patients received usual care, while intervention patients received usual care plus a comprehensive DDMP.
methodsThe primary outcome was improvement in A1C level over 12 months stratified by intervention status and patient characteristics. Process outcomes included the number of actions or contacts with patients, time spent with patients, and number of glucose medication titrations or additions.
resultsOne hundred ninety-three of 217 enrolled patients (88.9%) had complete 12-month followup data. Patients in the intervention group had significantly greater improvement in A1C level than the control group (-2.1% vs -1.2%, P = .007). In multivariate analysis, no significant differences were observed in improvement in A1C level when stratified by age, race/ethnicity, income, or insurance status, and no interaction effect was observed between any covariate and intervention status. Among intervention patients, we observed similar labor inputs regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, or whether goal A1C level was achieved.
conclusionsAmong intervention patients in a successful DDMP, improvement in A1C level was achieved regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, income, education, or insurance status. Labor inputs were similar regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sex, or education and may reflect the nondiscriminatory nature of providing algorithm-based disease management care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20148604PMC2914617What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.