Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23927490›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2013

Shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial in primary care.

Megan E Branda, Annie LeBlanc, Nilay D Shah, Kristina Tiedje, Kari Ruud, Holly Van Houten, Laurie Pencille, Marge Kurland, Barbara Yawn, Victor M Montori

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It reports registered trial NCT01029288. Cited by 69 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01029288 nacompleted

Impact of Decision Aids to Enhance Shared Decision Making for Diabetes

Ran2010Enrolled110Registered outcomes3Posted comparisons0ConditionsDiabetesArmsDiabetes Medication Choice Decision Aid, Statin Choice Decision Aid, Usual care for antihyperglycemic medication, Usual care for lipid therapy medication
Open the trial in the graph
NCT06410768 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating the Feasibility of a Future Trial-based Economic Evaluation of a Multistage Shared Decision-making Program for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2024 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Armsmultistage shared decision-making program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Decision Aid for Small Kidney Masses.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2022
    Trial
  18. Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

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

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.

Megan E BrandaKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Southwest, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Annie LeBlanc
Nilay D Shah
Kristina Tiedje
Kari Ruud
Holly Van Houten
Laurie Pencille
Marge Kurland
Barbara Yawn
Victor M Montori

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-centered diabetes care requires shared decision making (SDM). Decision aids promote SDM, but their efficacy in nonacademic and rural primary care clinics is unclear.

methodsWe cluster-randomized 10 practices in a concealed fashion to implement either a decision aid (DA) about starting statins or one about choosing antihyperglycemic agents. Each practice served as a control group for another practice implementing the other type of DA. From April 2011 to July 2012, 103 (DA=53) patients with type 2 diabetes participated in the trial. We used patient and clinician surveys administered after the clinical encounter to collect decisional outcomes (patient knowledge and comfort with decision making, patient and clinician satisfaction). Medical records provided data on metabolic control. Pharmacy fill profiles provided data for estimating adherence to therapy.

resultsCompared to usual care, patients receiving the DA were more likely to report discussing medications (77% vs. 45%, p<.001), were more likely to answer knowledge questions correctly (risk reduction with statins 61% vs. 33%, p=.07; knowledge about options 57% vs. 33%, p=.002) and were more engaged by their clinicians in decision making (50. vs. 28, difference 21.4 (95% CI 6.4, 36.3), p=.01). We found no significant impact on patient satisfaction, medication starts, adherence or clinical outcomes, in part due to limited statistical power.

conclusionDAs improved decisional outcomes without significant effect on clinical outcomes. DAs designed for point-of-care use with type 2 diabetes patients promoted shared decision making in nonacademic and rural primary care practices.

trial registrationNCT01029288.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPrimary Health CareAdultAgedCluster AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinnesota

Identifiers

PMID23927490
PMCPMC3751736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.