ReviewJournal of primary care & community health
Comprehensive Diabetes Assessment Instrument for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.
Review in Journal of primary care & community health. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThere is a paucity of efficient processes for collecting information in a primary care setting to connect patients afflicted with type 2 diabetes to valuable resources. The objective of this research project was to develop a Comprehensive Diabetes Assessment (CDA) instrument which could be used to assess patients' barriers to best outcomes.
methodsWe reviewed published literature and online compilations for validated tools assessing threats to optimal diabetes self-management. We conducted focus groups with patients, clinicians, and service providers who provided feedback on the tools' appropriateness and feasibility. We aggregated the favored tools and did cognitive testing with patients to assess understanding and affective response to the instrument.
resultsFive focus groups involved varied stakeholders in Baltimore, MD and Honolulu, HI. We presented 2 tools assessing knowledge barriers, 3 tools assessing psychological barriers, 4 tools assessing literacy, and 1 numeracy. The final instrument included 6 multi-part items and takes 3 minutes to complete. Cognitive interviewing with 8 patients in Baltimore and 8 in Hawaii confirmed that the instrument is understandable, quick to complete, and is acceptable to patients.
conclusionsBecause of the complexity of self-management of diabetes, we suggest that this CDA instrument, plus a social needs assessment, should be administered at least annually and at times of clinical deterioration. We anticipate the instrument will be proven valuable in connecting patients to services from which they will benefit.
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.