ArticleBMJ open2023
Nationwide survey of physicians' familiarity and awareness of diabetes guidelines in China: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. 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, 1 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
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to investigate physicians' familiarity and awareness of four diabetes guidelines and their practice of the recommendations outlined in these guidelines.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingAn online questionnaire survey was conducted among physicians affiliated with the Specialist Committee for Primary Diabetes Care of China Association of Chinese Medicine, using the snowball sampling method to ensure a broader representation of physicians.
participants1150 physicians from 192 cities across 30 provinces in China provided complete data.
resultsTertiary care hospital physicians (TCPs) exhibited the highest familiarity with the Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China (91.3%), followed by the National Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Diabetes in Primary Care (76.8%), the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (72.2%) and the Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of Diabetes in Chinese Medicine (63.8%). Primary care practitioners (PCPs) exhibited familiarity with these four guidelines at about 50% or less. Self-reported reference to modern diabetes guidelines by physicians is more frequent than traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) diabetes guidelines, with rates at 73.2% and 33.8%, respectively. Approximately 90% of physicians provided instructions on self-monitoring of blood glucose to their patients with diabetes. Less than one-third of physicians referred patients to a specialised nutritionist. In terms of health education management, TCPs reported having a diabetes health management team at the rate of 75.7%, followed by secondary care hospital physicians at 57.0% and PCPs at 27.5%. Furthermore, approximately 40% of physicians did not fully grasp hypoglycaemia characteristics.
conclusionsFamiliarity and awareness of the screening guidelines varied among physicians in different hospital settings. Importantly, significant discrepancies were observed between physicians' awareness and their self-reported reference to modern medicine guidelines and TCM guidelines. It is essential to consistently provide education and training on diabetes management for all physicians, particularly PCPs.
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.