ArticlePrimary health care research & development2020
Compared benefits of educational programs dedicated to diabetic patients with or without community pharmacist involvement.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternational guidelines on diabetes control strongly encourage the setting-up of therapeutic educational programs (TEP). However, more than half of the patients fail to control their diabetes a few months post-TEP because of a lack of regular follow-up by medical professionals. The DIAB-CH is a TEP associated with the follow-up of diabetic patients by the community pharmacist.
aimTo compare the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) in diabetic patients of Control (neither TEP-H nor community pharmacist intervention), TEP-H (TEP in hospital only) and DIAB-CH (TEP-H plus community pharmacist follow-up) groups.
methodsA comparative cohort study design was applied. Patients included in the TEP-H from July 2017 to December 2017 were enrolled in the DIAB-CH group. The TEP-H session was conducted by a multidisciplinary team composed of two diabetologists, two dieticians and seven nurses. The HbA1c level and the BMI (when over 30 kg/m2 at M0) of patients in Control (n = 20), TEP-H (n = 20) and DIAB-CH (n = 20) groups were collected at M0, M0 + 6 and M0 + 12 months. First, HbA1c and BMI were compared between M0, M6 and M12 in the three groups with the Friedman test, followed by the Benjamini-Hochberg post-test. Secondly, the HbA1c and BMI of the three groups were compared at M0, M6 and M12 using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
findingsWhile no difference in HbA1c was measured between M0, M6 and M12 in the Control group, Hb1Ac was significantly reduced in both TEP-H and DIAB-CH groups between M0 and M6 (P = 0.0072 and P = 0.0034, respectively), and between M0 and M12 only in the DIAB-CH group (P = 0.0027). In addition, a significant decrease in the difference between the measured HbA1c and the target assigned by diabetologists was observed between M0 and M6 in both TEP-H and DIAB-CH groups (P = 0.0072 and P = 0.0044, respectively) but only for the patients of the DIAB-CH group between M0 and M12 (P = 0.0044). No significant difference (P > 0.05) in BMI between the groups was observed.
conclusionThe long-lasting benefit on glycemic control of multidisciplinary group sessions associated with community pharmacist-led educational interventions on self-care for diabetic patients was demonstrated in the present study. There is thus evidence pointing to the effectiveness of a community/hospital care collaboration of professionals on diabetes control in primary care.
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.