Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28270389›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

A preconsultation web-based tool to generate an agenda for discussion in diabetes outpatient clinics to improve patient outcomes (DIAT): a feasibility study.

Obioha C Ukoumunne, Bijay Vaidya, Julia Frost, Rob Anderson, Catherine Argyle, Mark Daly, Faith Harris-Golesworthy, Jim Harris, Andy Gibson, Wendy Ingram and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Health system responses for type 1 diabetes: A scoping review.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Patient involvement in qualitative data analysis in a trial of a patient-centred intervention: Reconciling lay knowledge and scientific method.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Obioha C UkoumunneNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0551-9157
Bijay VaidyaDepartment of Diabetes & Endocrinology, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Julia FrostInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Rob AndersonPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Catherine ArgyleMacleod Diabetes and Endocrine Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Mark DalyMacleod Diabetes and Endocrine Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Faith Harris-GolesworthyPeninsula Public Involvement Group (PenPIG), NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Jim HarrisPeninsula Public Involvement Group (PenPIG), NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Andy GibsonInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Wendy IngramPeninsula Clinical Trials Unit, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
Jon PinkneyPlymouth University and Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK.
Jane VickeryPeninsula Clinical Trials Unit, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
Nicky BrittenNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
University of Exeter · GBPeninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBDerriford Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0711-25087
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a preconsultation web-based intervention (Presenting Asking Checking Expressing (PACE-D)) to improve the quality of care and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes. DESIGN AND

settingA feasibility study (with randomisation) conducted at outpatient diabetes clinics at two secondary care hospitals in Devon, UK.

participantsPeople with diabetes (type 1 and type 2) attending secondary care general diabetes outpatient clinics.

interventionThe PACE-D, a web-based tool adapted for patients with diabetes to use before their consultation to generate an agenda of topics to discuss with their diabetologist. OUTCOMES: The percentage of eligible patients who were recruited and the percentage of participants for whom routine glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) data (the putative primary outcome) could be extracted from medical notes and who completed secondary outcome assessments via questionnaire at follow-up were reported.

resultsIn contrast with the planned recruitment of 120 participants, only 71 participants were randomised during the 7-month recruitment period. This comprised 18.7% (95% CI 14.9% to 23.0%) of those who were eligible. Mean (SD) age of the participants was 56.5 (12.4) years and 66.2% had type 1 diabetes. Thirty-eight patients were randomised to the intervention arm and 33 to the control arm. HbA1c data were available for only 73% (95% CI 61% to 83%) of participants at the 6 months follow-up. The questionnaire-based data were collected for 66% (95% CI 54% to 77%) of the participants at 6 months follow-up. Participants reported that the PACE-D tool was easy to use.

conclusionsA randomised controlled trial of the preconsultation web-based intervention as set out in our current protocol is not feasible without significant modification to improve recruitment and follow-up of participants. The study also provides insights into the feasibility and challenges of conducting complex intervention trials in everyday clinical practice.

trial registrationISRCTN75070242.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesInternetReferral and ConsultationDiabetes MellitusFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareProgram EvaluationSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomGlycated Hemoglobindiabetespatient enablementpre-consultationself-management

Identifiers

PMID28270389
PMCPMC5353257
OpenAlexW2592011183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.