Trial reportPloS one2023
Evaluation of an interprofessional follow-up intervention among people with type 2 diabetes in primary care-A randomized controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews.
Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediabetes and cardiovascular risk factors: the effectiveness of a guided self-determination counselling approach in primary health care, a randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Supporting change in a complex reality: a qualitative study of specialist nurses' perceptions of counselling patients at risk of type 2 diabetes.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Longitudinal association of family support, health literacy, and self-management behavior in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis based on cross-lag model.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2025Article
- Applying the Guided Self-Determination Counselling Method in Primary Healthcare Among People at Risk of Developing Type 2 Diabetes: A Qualitative Study.Nursing open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With an ageing population and improved treatments people live longer with their chronic diseases, and primary care clinics face more costly and difficult-to-treat multimorbid patients. To meet these challenges, current guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes suggest that an interprofessional team should collaborate to enhance the delivery of worthwhile self-management support interventions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of an empowerment-based interprofessional follow-up intervention in people with type 2 diabetes in primary care on patient-reported outcomes, biomarkers and weight, and to explore the experiences of patients attending the intervention. We invited patients during regular visits to their general practitioners. The 12-month intervention included 1) empowerment-based counselling; 2) a standardized medical report. The control group received consultations with physicians only. The primary outcome was the Patient Activation Measure, a patient-reported measure assessing individual knowledge, skills, and confidence integral to managing one's health and healthcare. After the trial we conducted qualitative interviews. We observed no difference in the primary outcome scores. On secondary outcomes we found a significant between-group intervention effect in favor of the intervention group, with mean differences in glycemic control after 12 months (B [95% CI] = -8.6 [-17.1, -0.1] mmol/l; p = 0.045), and significant within-group changes of weight (B [95% CI] = -1.8 kg [-3.3, -0.3]; p = 0.02) and waist circumference (B [95% CI] = -3.9 cm [-7.3, -0.6]; p = 0.02). The qualitative data showed that the intervention opened patients' eyes for reflections and greater awareness, but they needed time to take on actions. The patients emphasized that the intervention gave rise to other insights and a greater understanding of their health challenges. We suggest testing the intervention among patients with larger disease burden and a more expressed motivation for change.
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.