Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2020
The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education Trial: a Cluster Randomized Trial Addressing Health Communication in Diabetes Care.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of behaviour change tools used by family doctors: a global systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Pooled it
- Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- The comparative efficacy of comprehensive self-care interventions in chronic illness: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Educational Interventions in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Health Care Settings. A Scoping Review.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2023Article
- Tools to Measure Health Literacy among Adult Hispanic Populations with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of the Literature.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Educational Interventions for Promoting Food Literacy and Patient Engagement in Preventing Complications of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Capsule Commentary on White et al., The Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education Trial: a Cluster Randomized Trial Addressing Health Communication in Diabetes Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective type 2 diabetes care remains a challenge for patients including those receiving primary care in safety net settings.
objectiveThe Partnership to Improve Diabetes Education (PRIDE) trial team and leaders from a regional department of health evaluated approaches to improve care for vulnerable patients.
designCluster randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes seeking care across 10 unblinded, randomly assigned safety net clinics in Middle TN.
interventionsA literacy-sensitive, provider-focused, health communication intervention (PRIDE; 5 clinics) vs. standard diabetes education (5 clinics). MAIN MEASURES: Participant-level primary outcome was glycemic control [A1c] at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included select health behaviors and psychosocial aspects of care at 12 and 24 months. Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to examine the comparative effectiveness of each approach to care. KEY
resultsOf 410 patients enrolled, 364 (89%) were included in analyses. Median age was 51 years; Black and Hispanic patients represented 18% and 25%; 96% were uninsured, and 82% had low annual income level (< $20,000); adequate health literacy was seen in 83%, but numeracy deficits were common. At 12 months, significant within-group treatment effects occurred from baseline for both PRIDE and control sites: adjusted A1c (- 0.76 [95% CI, - 1.08 to - 0.44]; P < .001 vs - 0.54 [95% CI, - 0.86 to - 0.21]; P = .001), odds of poor eating (0.53 [95% CI, 0.33-0.83]; P = .01 vs 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.68]; P < .001), treatment satisfaction (3.93 [95% CI, 2.48-6.21]; P < .001 vs 3.04 [95% CI, 1.93-4.77]; P < .001), and self-efficacy (2.97 [95% CI, 1.89-4.67]; P < .001 vs 1.81 [95% CI, 1.1-2.84]; P = .01). No significant difference was observed between study arms in adjusted analyses.
conclusionsBoth interventions improved the participant's A1c and behavioral outcomes. PRIDE was not more effective than standard education. Further research may elucidate the added value of a focused health communication program in this setting.
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.