ArticleBMC primary care2024
Diabetes knowledge, attitudes and practices among Chinese primary care physicians: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. 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.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward insulin treatment among patients with type 2 diabetes: a structural modeling study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exercise self-management behavioral phenotypes in type 2 diabetes: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Self-management of patients with type 2 diabetes in Chaoyang District, Beijing, and challenges in utilizing family and community resources: a mixed-methods study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Knowledge of diabetes among nurses of primary healthcare facilities in China: a cross-sectional survey study.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a public health crisis that requires adequate knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) by health care providers to prevent or delay the progression of the disease. This study aimed to assess the KAP regarding T2DM among primary care providers (PCPs) in Central China.
methodsThis multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted among 971 PCPs using self-employed KAP questionnaires. Questionnaires were designed to evaluate KAP regarding T2DM among PCPs, and was measured with SPSS software. Descriptive statistics, the Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple regression models used to analyze the data.70%, 80% and 70% of total values were considered as the cut-off point for defining good knowledge, positive attitude and correct practice.
resultsA total of 971 PCPs with a mean age of 44.0 ± 10.2 years were evaluated. 620 (63.9%) PCPs worked at village clinic and 605 (62.3%) PCPs have been working more than 20 years. Only 26.3% of the respondents participated in Continued Medical Education (CME) programs regarding diabetes in the past year due to Covid-19 pandemic. Overall, despite positive attitudes toward diabetes, there were substantial gaps in knowledge and practices. The PCPs scored 7.25 out of 14 points on the knowledge subscales, 7.13 out of 8 on the attitude subscales, and 4.85 out of 11 on the practice subscales. Gender, age, practice setting, professional titles, duration of practice and CME attendance were significant predictors of knowledge; Age, practice setting and duration of practice were significant predictors of attitudes; and family history of diabetes affected PCP practices.
conclusionsDespite positive attitudes toward diabetes, there were substantial gaps in knowledge and practices. These findings call for action from relevant health authorities and policy makers to improve PCPs' KAP regarding diabetes in Central China.
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.