ArticleDigital health
Pilot study of a patient portal intervention designed to empower patients to address diabetes care gaps.
Article in Digital health. 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Diabetes preventive care reduces complications, yet completion rates remain suboptimal. Patient portals may help close care gaps by enabling patients to initiate services, but their use for diabetes preventive care is understudied. Objective: To evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the Diabetes Care Gaps Intervention (DCGI), a portal-based tool that notifies patients when preventive care is due and enables them to initiate orders. Methods: We conducted a single-arm pilot study at an academic medical center. Adult primary care patients with diabetes and ≥1 care gap (HbA1c, urine microalbumin, eye exam, or pneumococcal vaccine) received DCGI access for three months. Primary outcomes were usability (System Usability Scale, SUS) and user experience (qualitative interviews, Likert-scale items). Secondary outcomes included diabetes self-efficacy, distress, engagement (patient-initiated orders), and care gap closure. Participants received modest compensation for survey completion and first use of the DCGI to initiate or report care. Results: Among 50 participants (median age 58.3 [IQR: 45.9, 67.0], 52% female, and 40% from minoritized racial/ethnic groups), 78% (39/50) initiated or reported care through the DCGI. The median SUS score was 78.8 (IQR: 70.0, 90.0), significantly above the "good" usability threshold of 71 ( Conclusions: The DCGI was acceptable and feasible for empowering patients to address diabetes care gaps. Future randomized studies should evaluate effectiveness and scalability.
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.