ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
The Benefits of Safely Achieving Near Normoglycemia from the Perspective of People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Quantitative Survey Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives on Stringent Glycemic Control and Weight Loss Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in China: A Survey Study.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025Article
- The Impact of Substantial Improvements in HbA1c and Weight Loss on the Medication Preferences of People with Type 2 Diabetes.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To understand the perspectives of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on safely reaching near normoglycemia, defined as a glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) value of <6%. HbA1c indicates the average blood sugar level over the past few months. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional online quantitative survey of people with T2D asked about the current impacts of T2D, the anticipated benefits of safely achieving near normoglycemia among participants with a current HbA1c ≥6%, or the actual benefits of safely achieving near normoglycemia among participants who had an HbA1c <6%. Participants reported on specific areas of psychological/emotional impact of T2D and the psychological/emotional benefits of achieving near normoglycemia. Results: Participants (N = 1000; United States = 500 and United Kingdom = 500) were 53.1% male and had a mean age of 62.9 years (SD = 13.3). The majority reported that the current HbA1c ≥6% (81.2%) and 49.2% had been diagnosed more than 10 years ago. The vast majority of participants (>90%) indicated that achieving near normoglycemia was meaningful, with 95% of the participants indicating that achieving near normoglycemia would be of somewhat or extreme importance to them. In total, 93.8% of participants with a current HbA1c ≥6% and 80.3% of those with a current HbA1c <6% anticipated/reported having experienced improvements as a result of achieving near normoglycemia. Among those who experienced or anticipated positive psychological/emotional impacts (n = 247), the most commonly reported impacts included less worry about future diabetes-related complications (79.8%), feeling in control over one's life (72.9%), and overall health-related quality of life (59.9%). Conclusion: Achieving near normoglycemia is both meaningful and important to the majority of people with T2D, including both those who have and those who have not experienced reaching near normoglycemia. A wide range of specific impacts, including psychological/emotional concepts, are experienced by people with T2D, many of which may be improved through achieving near normoglycemia.
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.