Trial reportChronic illness2025
Prerandomization withdrawals from a Type 2 diabetes self-care support intervention trial are associated with lack of available support person coparticipant.
Trial report in Chronic illness, 2025. 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
ObjectivesDyadic interventions, involving two persons with a preexisting close relationship, offer the opportunity to activate support persons (SPs) to improve health for adults with chronic conditions. Requiring SP coparticipation can challenge recruitment and bias samples; however, the associations between voluntary SP coparticipation and recruitment outcomes across patient characteristics are unknown.MethodsThe Family/Friend Activation to Motivate Self-care 2.0 randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled adults with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) from an academic health system. Participants were asked-but not required-to invite an SP to coenroll. Using data from the electronic health record we sought to describe RCT enrollment in the setting of voluntary SP coparticipation.ResultsIn a diverse sample of adults with (T2D) (48% female, 44% minoritized race/ethnicity), most participants (91%) invited SPs and (89%) enrolled with SPs. However, prerandomization withdrawal was significantly higher among participants who did not have consenting SPs than those who did. Females were less likely to invite SPs than males and more Black PWD were prerandomization withdrawals than randomized.DiscussionVoluntary SP coenrollment may benefit recruitment for dyadic sampling; however, more research is needed to understand if these methods systematically bias sampling and to prevent these unintended biases.
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.