ArticleJournal of community health2020
The Effect of Place of Service on Diabetic Screening Adherence in the Homeless Population.
Article in Journal of community health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the association between place of service and adherence to select diabetes screening measures in a homeless population. At a Midwestern metropolitan federally qualified health center (FQHC), 508 participants with diabetes and also experiencing homelessness were studied throughout calendar year 2018. Diabetes measures included controlled blood pressure, diabetic foot exam and hemoglobin A1C screening. Patients were seen at one of three locations: FQHC only, shelter only and both shelter and FQHC. After controlling for primary insurance, insurance status, homeless status, age group, ethnicity, primary language, race, sex and poverty level, a stepwise binary logistic regression demonstrated significant model improvement in A1c screening (p ≤ 0.001) and controlled blood pressure (p = 0.009) when place of service was added as a predictor. Specifically, results showed significant negative associations in screening adherence for shelter as compared to FQHC for both controlled blood pressure (OR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.20-0.79; p = 0.009) and A1c screening (OR = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.03-0.16; p ≤ 0.001). Our results support the hypothesis that FQHC care results in higher rates of adherence than shelter only or FQHC and shelter combined care. The study addresses the gap in literature surrounding place of service and patient adherence. Recommendations for future research are included.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31396826What 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.