Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29311173›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine2018

A Longitudinal Study of Interactions Between Health Professionals and People With Newly Diagnosed Diabetes.

Anthony Dowell, Maria Stubbe, Lindsay Macdonald, Rachel Tester, Lesley Gray, Sue Vernall, Tim Kenealy, Nicolette Sheridan, Barbara Docherty, Devi-Ann Hall and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony DowellDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand tony.dowell@otago.ac.nz.
Maria StubbeDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Lindsay MacdonaldDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Rachel TesterDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Lesley GrayDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Sue VernallDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Tim KenealyFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Nicolette SheridanFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Barbara DochertyFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Devi-Ann HallFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Deborah RaphaelFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kevin DewSchool of Social and Cultural Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
University of Otago · NZUniversity of Auckland · NZVictoria University of Wellington · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe undertook a study to observe in detail the primary care interactions and communications of patients with newly diagnosed diabetes over time. In addition, we sought to identify key points in the process where miscommunication might occur.

methodsAll health interactions of 32 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were recorded and tracked as they moved through the New Zealand health care system for a period of approximately 6 months. Data included video recordings of patient interactions with the health professionals involved in their care (eg, general practitioners, nurses, dietitians). We analyzed data with ethnography and interaction analysis.

resultsChallenges to effective communication in diabetes care were identified. Although clinicians showed high levels of technical knowledge and general communication skill, initial consultations were often driven by biomedical explanations out of context from patient experience. There was a perception of time pressure, but considerable time was spent with patients by health professionals repeating information that may not be relevant to patient need. Health professionals had little knowledge of what disciplines other than their own do and how their contributions to patient care may differ.

conclusionsDespite current high skill levels of primary care professionals, opportunities exist to increase the effectiveness of communication and consultation in diabetes care. The various health professionals involved in patient care should agree on the length and focus of each consultation.

Indexed as

CommunicationProfessional-Patient RelationsReferral and ConsultationClinical CompetenceDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLongitudinal StudiesNew ZealandPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchSelf-ManagementTime Factorsdiabetesdisease managementhealth communicationpatient educationpractice-based researchprimary care

Identifiers

PMID29311173
PMCPMC5758318
OpenAlexW2784017631

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.