Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35971210›Full record

Trial reportJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2023

Factors related to recruitment and retention of patients into diabetes group visits in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Aaditi G Naik, Erin Staab, Jefferine Li, Sara Siddiqui, Wen Wan, Cynthia T Schaefer, Amanda Campbell, Michael Quinn, Arshiya A Baig

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. A Multi-Method Study of Patient Reach and Attendance in a Pragmatic Trial of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aaditi G NaikPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2662-4025
Erin StaabSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jefferine LiSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Sara SiddiquiSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Wen WanSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Cynthia T SchaeferMidwest Clinicians' Network, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Amanda CampbellMidwest Clinicians' Network, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Michael QuinnSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Arshiya A BaigSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3368-9054
University of Chicago · US

Funding

Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Ronald T. Ackermann, MARSHALL H CHIN · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092949OMH OASH HHS 1 CPIMP171145-01-00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND

objectivesTo examine factors related to recruitment of eligible patients and retention of enrolled patients in diabetes group visits (GVs).

methodAs part of a cluster randomized trial, 272 eligible patients were contacted and 75 patients were eventually enrolled in GVs at six community health centers (CHC). Fisher's exact tests and χ

resultsIn terms of recruitment and enrollment analysis, patients who received in-person contact only and both phone and in-person contact comprised a greater fraction of the enrolled than unenrolled group, while those who received phone only and both phone and mail comprised a smaller fraction of the enrolled than unenrolled group (p = 0.004). In terms of retention analysis, 70 of the 75 enrolled patients attended at least one GV (93%). The average number of GVs was 3.2 out of 6 visits. Higher GV attendance was associated with lower baseline diabetes empowerment (p = 0.03). Patients' most common self-reported motivating factors to attend GVs were to learn more about diabetes, gain improved blood glucose control and find support from peers.

conclusionIn-person recruitment for GVs at CHCs was more effective than recruitment by telephone/mail. Patients who felt less empowered to manage their diabetes were most motivated to attend GVs. These findings could help clinicians implement targeted recruitment of patient populations who are more likely to attend diabetes GVs and tailor self-management education interventions to their patient populations, particularly for underserved patients who face disparate clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2EmotionsHumansPatient SelectionTelephonebarriers to attendancecommunity health centersgroup visitspatient recruitmentself-management educationtype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID35971210
PMCPMC10086856
OpenAlexW4291815602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.