ArticleBMC health services research2018
Differences between the perspectives of physicians and patients on the potential barriers to optimal diabetes control in China: a multicenter study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to primary care management of type 2 diabetes in Shijiazhuang City, China: a mixed methods study.BMC primary care · 2024Trial
- Article
- Exploring facilitators and barriers to self-management engagement of Chinese people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and poor blood glucose control: a descriptive qualitative study.BMC endocrine disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the potential barriers to optimal diabetes control by evaluating the different perspectives of physicians and patients on such matters in China.
methodsThis multi-center survey was conducted from December 2015 to March 2016. A multi-stage stratified random sampling method was used to sample representative diabetes physicians and patients in 18 hospitals in Shaanxi province, China. A self-designed questionnaire was used. The questionnaire mainly consisted of 2 questions for physicians and 1 question for patients of which the participants were required to rank in priority of 3 (for physicians) and 2 (for patients) choices from a list of barriers. The strategies to improve diabetes control were only in the questionnaire for physicians.
resultsA total of 85 physicians and 584 patients completed the questionnaire. Physicians and patients differed regarding the patients' awareness of the risk of diabetes: over 70% of the physicians believed that the patients had no sufficient understanding of the harm and risk of diabetes, whereas the patients believed otherwise. Both physicians and patients considered self-monitoring of blood glucose to be an important link of glucose control; unfortunately, most of the patients failed to do so in practice. In addition, physicians considered "improving health insurance coverage for diabetes" as the first important measure and "providing more and easy-to-use diabetes brochures or educational materials for patients" as the second important measure to improve diabetes control.
conclusionThe survey revealed differences between the perspectives of physicians and patients on the potential barriers to optimal diabetes control. The main potential barriers to optimal diabetes control were patient's poor lifestyle interventions, limited understanding of the danger of diabetes, and poor self-monitoring of blood glucose. From the physicians' perspective, China's primary focus about diabetes control in the future should still be put on diabetes education, particular the importance of lifestyle interventions.
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.