ArticleBMC family practice2018
Diabetes care providers' opinions and working methods after four years of experience with a diabetes patient web portal; a survey among health care providers in general practices and an outpatient clinic.
Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Facilitation to Support Patient Access to Web-Based Primary Care Services: Scoping Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Perspectives and Views of Primary Care Professionals Regarding DiabeText, a New mHealth Intervention to Support Adherence to Antidiabetic Medication in Spain: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Challenge of Sustainable Access to Telemonitoring Tools for People with Diabetes in Europe: Lessons from COVID-19 and Beyond.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021Review
- How the Use of a Patient-Accessible Health Record Contributes to Patient-Centered Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo gain insight into the opinions and working methods of diabetes care providers after using a diabetes web portal for 4 years in order to understand the role of the provider in patients' web portal use.
methodsSurvey among physicians and nurses from general practices and an outpatient clinic, correlated with data from the common web portal.
resultsOne hundred twenty-eight questionnaires were analysed (response rate 56.6%). Responders' mean age was 46.2 ± 9.8 years and 43.8% were physicians. The majority was of opinion that the portal improves patients' diabetes knowledge (90.6%) and quality of care (72.7%). Although uploading glucose diary (93.6%) and patient access to laboratory and clinical notes (91.2 and 71.0%) were considered important, these features were recommended to patients in only 71.8 and 19.5% respectively. 64.8% declared they informed their patients about the portal and 45.3% handed-out the information leaflet and website address. The portal was especially recommended to type 1 diabetes patients (78.3%); those on insulin (84.3%) and patients aged< 65 years (72.4%). Few found it timesaving (21.9%). Diabetes care providers' opinions were not associated with patients' portal use.
conclusionsProviders are positive about patients web portals but still not recommend or encourage the use to all patients. There seems room for improvement in their working methods.
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.