Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26700275›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

Qualitative study of telemonitoring of blood glucose and blood pressure in type 2 diabetes.

Janet Hanley, Peter Fairbrother, Lucy McCloughan, Claudia Pagliari, Mary Paterson, Hilary Pinnock, Aziz Sheikh, Sarah Wild, Brian McKinstry

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How point-of-care HbADiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Janet HanleyDepartment of Nursing Midwifer and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK Edinburgh Health Services Research Unit, Edinburgh, UK.
Peter FairbrotherDepartment of Public Health, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Lucy McCloughanUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4099-6183
Claudia PagliariUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Mary PatersonUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Hilary PinnockUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Aziz SheikhUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sarah WildUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Brian McKinstryEdinburgh Health Services Research Unit, Edinburgh, UK Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GBEdinburgh Napier University · GBNHS Lothian · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office ARPG/07/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the experiences of patients and professionals taking part in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of blood glucose, blood pressure (BP) and weight telemonitoring in type 2 diabetes supported by primary care, and identify factors facilitating or hindering the effectiveness of the intervention and those likely to influence its potential translation to routine practice.

designQualitative study adopting an interpretive descriptive approach.

participants23 patients, 6 nurses and 4 doctors who were participating in a RCT of blood glucose and BP telemonitoring. A maximum variation sample of patients from within the trial based on age, sex and deprivation status of the practice was sought.

setting12 primary care practices in Scotland and England.

methodData were collected via recorded semistructured interviews. Analysis was inductive with themes presented within an overarching thematic framework. Multiple strategies were employed to ensure that the analysis was credible and trustworthy.

resultsTelemonitoring of blood glucose, BP and weight by people with type 2 diabetes was feasible. The data generated by telemonitoring supported self-care decisions and medical treatment decisions. Motivation to self-manage diet was increased by telemonitoring of blood glucose, and the 'benign policing' aspect of telemonitoring was considered by patients to be important. The convenience of home monitoring was very acceptable to patients although professionals had some concerns about telemonitoring increasing workload and costs.

conclusionsTelemonitoring of blood glucose, BP and weight in primary care is a promising way of improving diabetes management which would be highly acceptable to the type of patients who volunteered for this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71674628; Pre-results.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkersBlood GlucoseBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryBody WeightDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchScotlandSelf CareBiomarkersBlood GlucosePRIMARY CAREQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID26700275
PMCPMC4691739
OpenAlexW2220086083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.