ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2016
Implementation of collaborative goal setting for diabetes in community primary care.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Application of the RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: An Updated Systematic Review and Exploration of Pragmatic Application.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Collaborative goal setting (CGS) is a cornerstone of diabetes self-management support, but little is known about its feasibility and effectiveness during routine care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an existing CGS intervention when integrated by primary care staff. Using a mixed-methods approach guided by the RE-AIM framework, intervention adoption, implementation, reach, and effectiveness were evaluated over 12 months. Three of four sites adopted the CGS intervention, in which 521 patients with type 2 diabetes (9-29 % of those targeted) received CGS. For those with suboptimal glycemic control (A1C ≥ 7.5 %), %A1C decreased by 1.1 for those receiving CGS (n = 204, p < 0.001) compared to 0.4 for a group who did not (n = 41, p = 0.23). Practice characteristics influenced adoption and implementation, while isolation of CGS from the remainder of clinical care likely influenced reach and effectiveness. CGS may benefit patients with diabetes, but a lack of integration by practice staff is a key barrier to overcome during implementation.
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.