ArticleThe American journal of managed care2017
Effects of an enhanced primary care program on diabetes outcomes.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Role of Health Technologies in Multicomponent Primary Care Interventions: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Multicomponent interventions for enhancing primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Pooled it
- Reducing unscheduled hospital care for adults with diabetes following a hypoglycaemic event: which community-based interventions are most effective? A systematic review.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2021Review
- Toward Standardized Monitoring of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care Using Electronic Medical Records: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2019Review
- Outcomes in an Interdisciplinary Diabetes Clinic in Rural Primary Care.Southern medical journal · 2019Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of Buena Salud, a multidisciplinary enhanced primary care program for Medicaid Managed Care patients at a community health center serving a low-income Hispanic community. STUDY
designControlled before-and-after observational study.
methodsWe extracted data from the electronic health record for patients aged 18 to 64 years with a) type 2 diabetes (T2D) enrolled in the Buena Salud program between August 2011 and January 2012 and b) randomly selected control patients with T2D who had been seen at the study health center during the same time frame. Outcomes included process measures (eg, number of glycosylated hemoglobin measures in a year), target lab and blood pressure values, and utilization measures (eg, emergency department visits). Demographics and other potential confounders were also extracted. We used a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to estimate the effect of the intervention.
resultsA total of 72 Buena Salud patients with T2D and 247 control patients with T2D were included in the analysis. The Buena Salud group had a greater increase in the percentage of patients with guideline-concordant measurement of microalbumin/creatinine (DID = 22.2%; P = .008), a trend toward fewer hospitalizations than controls, and a mean rise in diastolic blood pressure. We did not find differences in other outcome or utilization measures.
conclusionsA recently implemented enhanced primary care program had minimal impact on T2D process, outcome, and utilization measures for patients in this study. However, there were some promising trends, and it is possible that the intervention may demonstrate more of an effect as the program matures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28385028PMC5871920What 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.