Trial reportBMC primary care2026
The effect of a primary care intervention on diabetes distress in individuals with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05571306 (Can Diabetes Distress be Reduced by Improving Entry to Care for People With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus), which is not on this 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.
Can Diabetes Distress be Reduced by Improving Entry to Care for People With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cluster-randomized Trial
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about how best to intervene against diabetes distress in patients recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We evaluate the effect of a structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention on diabetes distress in individuals during the 12 months following diagnosis.
methodIn a cluster-randomized controlled trial, 30 general practice clinics in the Region of Southern Denmark were randomized 1:1 to an intervention or routine diabetes care. The intervention was designed to improve continuity of care, quality of care, and patient diabetes literacy. Patients completed the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS-17) shortly after diagnosis and again 12 months later. The primary outcome was between-group changes in DDS scores over time. Secondary outcomes included between-group changes in HbA1c and HDL cholesterol levels between diagnosis and follow-up.
resultsA total of 193 patients completed the baseline questionnaire (58 control; 136 intervention), 87 also completed 12-month follow-up (23 control, 64 intervention). The initial DDS indicated that 28.4% of the entire sample experienced distress. This increased to 32.1% at follow-up. No significant group differences were found in changes of overall DDS scores (β = − 0.25, 95% CI = − 0.49, 0.00). A statistically significant effect was observed on interpersonal diabetes distress, with a group x time interaction (β = − 0.30, 95% CI = − 0.54, − 0.06). Reductions in the number of patients with abnormal baseline HbA1c were greater in the control group (OR = 4.25, 95% CI = 1.08, 16.80). Reductions in the number of patients with abnormal HDL were not significantly different between groups.
conclusionThis study provides novel insight into prevalence and severity of diabetes distress in the first year following diagnosis. While the intervention did not reduce overall diabetes distress, it appeared to stabilize diabetes-related interpersonal distress. We discuss these results in the context of the limited literature on diabetes distress in the first year following diagnosis, noting that low baseline distress, participant attrition, high quality of routine diabetes care, and design limitations may have muted intervention effects.
trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov NCT05571306. Registered October 7, 2022.
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.