Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29444781›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2018

Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review.

Jacquie Boyang Lu, Kristin J Danko, Michael D Elfassy, Vivian Welch, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Noah M Ivers

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2022
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Equity-focused evidence synthesis - A need to optimise our approach.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jacquie Boyang LuFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7433-9646
Kristin J DankoClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Michael D ElfassyFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vivian WelchFaculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Noah M IversFamily Practice Health Centre, Women's College Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAQueen's University · CA

Funding

CIHR FRN-123345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear.

objectiveThis is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying the proportion of studies that target interventions toward disadvantaged populations and conduct analyses on the impact of interventions on disadvantaged groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsStudies were identified using Medline, HealthStar and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database. Randomised controlled trials assessing 12 QI strategies targeting health systems, healthcare professionals and/or patients for the management of adult outpatients with diabetes were eligible. The place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupational status, gender/sexual identity, religious affiliations, education level, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus age, disability, sexual preferences and relationships (PROGRESS-Plus) framework was used to identify trials that focused on disadvantaged patient populations, to examine the types of equity-relevant factors that are being considered and to explore temporal trends in equity-relevant diabetes QI trials.

resultsOf the 278 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 95 trials had equity-relevant considerations. These include 64 targeted trials that focused on a disadvantaged population with the aim to improve the health status of that population and 31 general trials that undertook subgroup analyses to assess the extent to which their interventions may have had differential impacts on disadvantaged subgroups. Trials predominantly focused on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence as potential factors for disadvantage in patients receiving diabetes care.

conclusionsLess than one-third of diabetes QI trials included equity-relevant considerations, limiting the relevance and applicability of their data to disadvantaged populations. There is a need for better data collection, reporting, analysis and interventions on the social determinants of health that may influence the health outcomes of patients with diabetes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42013005165.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusEthnicityQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareResidence CharacteristicsSocial ClassVulnerable PopulationsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansRacial GroupsSocioeconomic Factorsequityquality improvementsocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID29444781
PMCPMC5829812
OpenAlexW2789373709

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.