ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2023
Team-Based Diabetes Care in Ontario and Hong Kong: a Comparative Review.
Review in Current diabetes reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with diabetes across chronic kidney disease stages: an emulated target trial in China.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Use of oral healthcare facilities for the screening of hyperglycaemia in dental patients with undiagnosed type-2 diabetes mellitus in Andhra Pradesh, India.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
- Differences in clinical profiles and cancer incidence among patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: Comparison between multidisciplinary and usual management.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThere are gaps in implementing and accessing team-based diabetes care. We reviewed and compared how team-based diabetes care was implemented in the primary care contexts of Ontario and Hong Kong. RECENT
findingsOntario's Diabetes Education Programs (DEPs) were scaled-up incrementally. Hong Kong's Multidisciplinary Risk Assessment and Management Program for Diabetes Mellitus (RAMP-DM) evolved from a research-driven quality improvement program. Each jurisdiction had a mixture of non-team and team-based primary care with variable accessibility. Referral procedures, follow-up processes, and financing models varied. DEPs used a flexible approach, while the RAMP-DM used structured assessment for quality assurance. Each approach depended on adequate infrastructure, processes, and staff. Diabetes care is most accessible and functional when integrated team-based services are automatically initiated upon diabetes diagnosis within a strong primary care system, ideally linked to a register with supports including specialist care. Structured assessment and risk stratification are the basis of a well-studied, evidence-based approach for achieving the standards of team-based diabetes care, although flexibility in care delivery may be needed to meet the unique needs of some individuals. Policymakers and funders should ensure investment in skilled health professionals, infrastructure, and processes to improve care quality.
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.