ArticleCureus2022
Feasibility of a Brief Intervention to Increase Rapid Primary Care Follow-Up Among African American Patients With Uncontrolled Diabetes.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 0 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The management of diabetes, like many other chronic conditions, depends on effective primary care engagement. Patients with diabetes without a usual source of care have a higher risk of uncontrolled disease, hospitalizations, and early death. Our objective was to study the effect of a brief intervention to help patients in medically underserved areas obtain rapid primary care follow-up appointments following hospitalization. We performed a pilot pragmatic randomized controlled trial of adult patients with uncontrolled diabetes who had been admitted to one of three hospitals in the Memphis, TN, area. The enhanced usual care arm received a list of primary care clinics, whereas the intervention group had an appointment made for them preceding their index discharge. Patients in both groups were evaluated for primary care appointment attendance within seven and fourteen days of index discharge. In addition, we examined barriers patients encounter to receiving rapid primary care follow-up using a secret shopper approach to assess wait times when calling primary care offices. Twelve patients were enrolled with six in each trial arm. Baseline demographics, access to medical care, and health literacy were similar across the groups. Primary care follow-up was also similar across the groups; no improvements in follow-up rates were seen in the group receiving assistance with making appointments. Identified barriers to making primary care follow-up appointments included inability to schedule an urgent appointment, long hold times when calling doctor's offices and lack of transportation. Additionally, hold times when calling primary care offices were found to be excessively long in the medically underserved areas studied. The study demonstrates the feasibility of providing patient assistance with scheduling rapid primary care follow-up appointments at the time of discharge and the potential to improve care transitions and access to primary care among patients living in medically underserved areas. Larger pragmatic trials are needed to further test alternative approaches for insuring rapid primary care follow-up in vulnerable patients with ambulatory care-sensitive chronic conditions.
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.