ArticleAJPM focus2025
A Diabetes Prevention Cascade Model for Healthcare Organizations: Results From a Pilot for Disproportionately Affected Populations.
Article in AJPM focus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A conceptual cascade model was developed to track diabetes prevention efforts in the process for managing patients with prediabetes and compared with observed data from healthcare organizations. Methods: The cascade tracked patients eligible for diabetes prevention at each level of the cascade derived from multiple data sources. This was aligned with eligible (aggregated) data from 3 pilot healthcare organizations ( Results: Healthcare organizations had higher screening eligibility than expected (43% vs 35%). Laboratory tests ordered were lower than expected for the total population (42% vs 60%) and aligned well for the disproportionately affected population (57% vs 60%). Ranges for prediabetes laboratory tests were close to expected for the total (38% vs 35%) and disproportionately affected population (39% vs 35%). Referral rates were higher (assuming awareness of the condition) in the total (188% vs 25%) and disproportionately affected population (264% vs 25%). Conversion rates from referral to enrollment were lower than expected in the total (14% vs 25%) and disproportionately affected population (13% vs 25%). Conclusions: Despite increased referral rates, there is still a need to improve the enrollment conversion rate. Feedback from the conceptual model to observed data can provide critical findings to facilitate diabetes prevention efforts.
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.