Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26160892›Full record

Trial reportFamily practice2015

Explaining engagement in self-monitoring among participants of the DESMOND Self-monitoring Trial: a qualitative interview study.

Helen C Eborall, Helen M Dallosso, Sarah McNicol, Jane Speight, Kamlesh Khunti, Melanie J Davies, Simon R Heller

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Helen C EborallDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, hce3@le.ac.uk.
Helen M DallossoLeicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK, Leicester Clinical Trials Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Sarah McNicolEducation and Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Jane SpeightAHP Research, Hornchurch, UK, The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing Research, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Kamlesh KhuntiLeicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK and.
Melanie J DaviesLeicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK, Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK and.
Simon R HellerDepartment of Human Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
University of Leicester · GBDeakin University · AUManchester Metropolitan University · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Diabetes UK 05/0003253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Diabetes Education and Self-Management for Ongoing and Newly Diagnosed (DESMOND) Self-monitoring Trial reported that people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes attending community-based structured education and randomized to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or urine monitoring had comparable improvements in biomedical outcomes, but differences in satisfaction with, and continued use of monitoring method, well-being and perceived threat from diabetes.

objectivesTo explore experiences of SMBG and urine monitoring following structured education. We specifically addressed the perceived usefulness of each monitoring method and the associated well-being.

methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews with 18 adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes participating in the DESMOND Self-monitoring Trial (SMBG, N=10; urine monitoring, N=8)~12 months into the trial. Analysis was informed by the constant comparative approach.

resultsInterviewees reported SMBG as accurate, convenient and useful. Declining use was explained by having established a pattern of managing blood glucose with less frequent monitoring or lack of feedback or encouragement from health care professionals. Many initially positive views of urine monitoring progressively changed due to perceived inaccuracy, leading some to switch to SMBG. Perceiving diabetes as less serious was attributable to lack of symptoms, treatment with diet alone and-in the urine-monitoring group-consistently negative readings. Urine monitoring also provided less visible evidence of diabetes and of the effect of behaviour on glucose.

conclusionsThe findings highlight the importance for professionals of considering patients' preferences when using self-monitoring technologies, including how these change over time, when supporting the self-care behaviours of people with type 2 diabetes.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient PreferenceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHealth StatusHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicQualitative ResearchBlood glucose self-monitoringeducationprimary health careself-caretype 2 diabetes mellitusurinalysis.

Identifiers

PMID26160892
PMCPMC5926453
OpenAlexW2233480596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.