ArticlePharmacy practice2010
Quality assessment of patients' self-monitoring of blood glucose in community pharmacies.
Article in Pharmacy practice, 2010. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polish Patients' Needs and Opinions about the Implementation of Pharmaceutical Care in Diabetes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Priorities in the Prevention Strategies for Medication Error Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process Method.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Patients' blood pressure knowledge, perceptions and monitoring practices in community pharmacies.Pharmacy practice · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate diabetes patients' self-monitoring of blood glucose using a community pharmacy-based quality assurance procedure, to investigate whether the procedure improved the quality of the patient performance of self monitoring of blood glucose, and to examine the opinions of the patients taking part in the study.
methodsThe results of patient blood glucose measurements were compared to the results obtained with HemoCue Glucose 201(+) by pharmacy employees in 16 Norwegian community pharmacies. Patient performance was monitored using an eight item checklist. Patients whose blood glucose measurements differed from pharmacy measurements by more than 20% were instructed in the correct use of their glucometer. The patients then re-measured their blood glucose. If the results were still outside the set limits, the control procedure was repeated with a new lot of glucometer strips, and then with a new glucometer. The patients returned for a follow-up visit after three months.
resultsDuring the first visit, 5% of the 338 patients had measurements that deviated from pharmacy blood glucose values by more than 20% and user errors were observed for 50% of the patients. At the second visit, there was no significant change in the analytical quality of patient measurements, but the percentage of patients who made user errors had decreased to 29% (p < 0.001). Eighty-five percent of the patients reported that they used their blood glucose results to adjust medication, exercise or meals. Fifty-one percent of the patients reported a greater trust in their measurements after the second visit. Eighty percent of patients wished to have their measurements assessed yearly. Of these patients, 83% preferred to have the assessment done at the community pharmacy.
conclusionA community pharmacy-based quality assessment procedure of patients' self monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduced the number of user errors. The analytical quality of the patients' measurements was good and did not improve further during the study. The high analytical quality might be explained by a selection bias of participating patients. Patients also reported increased confidence in their blood glucose measurements after their measurements had been assessed at the pharmacy.
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.