ArticlePatient preference and adherence2013
Redesigning an intensive insulin service for patients with type 1 diabetes: a patient consultation exercise.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility study of real-time online text-based CBT to support self-management for people with type 1 diabetes: the Diabetes On-line Therapy (DOT) Study.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2021Trial
- How Do Hospitals Organize Diabetes Services? A Comparative Study.International journal of preventive medicine · 2023Review
- Redesigning an intensive insulin service for patients with type 1 diabetes: a patient consultation exercise.Patient preference and adherence · 2013Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextProviding effective support for patients in using insulin effectively is essential for good diabetes care. For that support to be effective it must reflect and attend to the needs of patients. PURPOSE: To explore the perspectives of adult type 1 diabetes patients on their current diabetes care in order to generate ideas for creating a new patient centered intensive insulin clinic.
methodsA multi-method approach was used, comprising: an observational exercise of current clinical care; three focus groups (n = 17); and a survey of service users (n = 419) to test the ideas generated from the observational exercise and focus groups (rating 1 to 5 in terms of importance). The ideas generated by the multi-method approach were organized thematically and mapped onto the Chronic Care Model (CCM).
resultsTHE THEMES AND PREFERENCES FOR SERVICE REDESIGN IN RELATION TO CCM COMPONENTS WERE: health care organization, there was an interest in having enhanced systems for sharing clinical information; self-management support, patients would like more flexible and easy to access resources and more help with diabetes technology and psychosocial support; delivery system design and clinical information systems, the need for greater integration of care and better use of clinic time; productive relationships, participants would like more continuity; access to health professionals, patient involvement and care planning. The findings from the patient survey indicate high preferences for most of the areas for service enhancement identified in the focus groups and observational exercise. Clinical feedback and professional continuity (median = 5, interquartile range = 1) were the most highly rated.
conclusionThe patient consultation process had generated important ideas on how the clinical team and service can improve the care provided. Key areas for service development were: a stronger emphasis of collaborative care planning; improved patient choice in the use of health technology; more resources for self-management support; and a more explicit format for the process of care in the clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.