ArticleBMC primary care2023
Delivering diabetes shared medical appointments in primary care: early and mid-program adaptations and implications for successful implementation.
Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03590041 (Invested in Diabetes), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 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.
Invested in Diabetes: Comparing Patient-Centered Outcomes of Standardized Versus Patient-Driven Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments (PCORI IHS-1609-36322)
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the impact of shared medical appointments for diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC primary care · 2025Pooled it
- The application of the RE-AIM and PRISM framework to process evaluations of diabetes self-management programs: a systematic review and secondary analysis of literature.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Process Evaluations of Diabetes Self-Management Programs: A Systematic Review of the Literature.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Driven versus Standardized Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Trial
- Sustaining Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments After a Pragmatic Trial.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMTrial
- What works in implementing shared medical appointments for patients with diabetes in primary care to enhance reach: a qualitative comparative analysis from the Invested in Diabetes study.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- Telehealth Walking Self-Management for Individuals With Amputation: A Qualitative Study of Therapist Perspectives on Adoption.Physical therapy · 2024Article
- Implementation of a virtual, shared medical appointment program that focuses on food as medicine principles in a population with obesity: the SLIM program.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Evaluating video and hybrid group consultations in general practice: mixed-methods, participatory study protocol (TOGETHER 2).NIHR open research · 2024Article
- Transforming care for patients living with diabetes in rural Mexico: a qualitative study of patient and provider experiences and perceptions of shared medical appointments.Global health action · 2023Article
- Diabetes MESSAGES: A Learning Collaborative to Support Community Health Centers in Implementing and Sustaining Group Visits.The Journal of ambulatory care managementArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-management is essential for good outcomes in type 2 diabetes and patients often benefit from self-management education. Shared medical appointments (SMAs) can increase self-efficacy for self management but are difficult for some primary care practices to implement. Understanding how practices adapt processes and delivery of SMAs for patients with type 2 diabetes may provide helpful strategies for other practices interested in implementing SMAs.
methodsThe Invested in Diabetes study was a pragmatic cluster-randomized, comparative effectiveness trial designed to compare two different models of diabetes SMAs delivered in primary care. We used a multi-method approach guided by the FRAME to assess practices' experience with implementation, including any planned and unplanned adaptations. Data sources included interviews, practice observations and field notes from practice facilitator check-ins.
resultsSeveral findings were identified from the data: 1) Modifications and adaptations are common in implementation of SMAs, 2) while most adaptations were fidelity-consistent supporting the core components of the intervention conditions as designed, some were not, 3) Adaptations were perceived to be necessary to help SMAs meet patient and practice needs and overcome implementation challenges, and 4) Content changes in the sessions were often planned and enacted to better address the contextual circumstances such as patient needs and culture. DISCUSSION: Implementing SMAs in primary care can be challenging and adaptations of both implementation processes and content and delivery of SMAS for patients with type 2 diabetes were common in the Invested in Diabetes study. Recognizing the need for adaptations based on practice context prior to implementation may help improve fit and success with SMAs, but care needs to be given to ensure that adaptations do not weaken the impact of the intervention. Practices may be able to assess what might need to adapted for them to be successful prior to implementation but likely will continue to adapt after implementation.
conclusionAdaptations were common in the Invested in Diabetes study. Practices may benefit from understanding common challenges in implementing SMAs and adapting processes and delivery based on their own context.
trial registrationThis trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov under Trial number NCT03590041, posted 18/07/2018.
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.