Trial reportJournal of primary care & community health
From Trials to Practice: Implementing a Clinical Intervention in Community Settings.
Trial report 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. 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.
- Healthcare Utilization Unchanged in the Control Arm of a Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesDiabetes increases the risk of complications, especially for vulnerable populations. Our previous randomized clinical trial (RCT), TIME (
methodsWe conducted a 12-month RCT at a nonprofit community clinic using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants, Hispanic adults without insurance and with type 2 diabetes (N = 58; 29/arm), were randomized to TIME (intervention) or usual care (control). The intervention included monthly group visits and weekly CHW mHealth contact (6 months, Action Phase), followed by quarterly visits and bi-monthly mHealth contact (6 months, Maintenance Phase). The research team provided tele-mentoring to the clinic team throughout the intervention. Outcomes included implementation measures including acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, satisfaction, and effectiveness. KEY
resultsThe program showed high levels of fidelity (direct observation), adoption (CHW-participant contact: 844 successes of 957 attempts [88.2%]), and feasibility (3.4% attrition). The intervention's net savings was $16,435 ($566/participant). At 6 months, intervention participants had greater HbA1c reductions (-0.85% vs 0.35% [δ = 1.2%];
conclusionsTIME met key early implementation measures, including strong engagement at both clinic and participant levels, while demonstrating cost savings and significant clinical improvements. These results support the transition of TIME from efficacy trials to practical, community-based diabetes care. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.
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.