Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2014
Translating the hemoglobin A1C with more easily understood feedback: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01143870 (Examining Ways to Increase Patient Understanding of Diabetes Control and Disease Severity Through Reinterpretation of Hemoglobin A1C Values With the Goal of Improved Diabetes Control), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Examining Ways to Increase Patient Understanding of Diabetes Control and Disease Severity Through Reinterpretation of Hemoglobin A1C Values With the Goal of Improved Diabetes Control
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Scoping Review of Behavioral Economic Interventions for Prevention and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Current diabetes reports · 2017Pooled it
- Testing patient-informed approaches for visually depicting the hemoglobin A1c value to patients with poorly controlled diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- The Role of Emotions in Health Literacy and Patient Education: Trends, Technologies, and Future Opportunities-A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Perspectives of nurses and patients on the misplacement of supportive care information for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a qualitative study in China.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Exploring how patients understand and assess their diabetes control.BMC endocrine disorders · 2018Article
- Knowledge of A1c Predicts Diabetes Self-Management and A1c Level among Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.PloS one · 2016Article
- Prospective EHR-based clinical trials: the challenge of missing data.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Article
- Beyond HIV viral load: application of pharmacologic measures to identify ART adherence mismatch.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPrevious work has indicated that for patients with diabetes, there is value in understanding glycemic control. Despite these findings, patient understanding of the hemoglobin A1C value (A1C) is notably poor. In this study, we test the effect of two alternative communication formats of the A1C on improving glycemic control among patients with poorly controlled diabetes.
methods177 patients with poorly controlled diabetes were randomized to one of three study arms that varied in the information they received: (1) a "diabetes report card" containing individualized information about glycemic control for each participant with letter grades ranging from A to F; (2) a "report card" containing a face whose emotion reflected current glycemic control; or (3) a "report card" with glycemic control expressed with the A1C value (standard arm). The primary study outcome was change in A1C at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in participant perceptions of their glycemic control.
resultsThe average A1C for enrolled participants was 9.9 % (S.D. 1.7) and did not differ significantly among study arms. We noted no significant differences in change in A1C at 6 months between the standard and experimental arms. Using multiple imputation to account for missing A1C values, the changes in A1C for the letter grade, face, and standard arms were -0.55 % (-1.15, 0.05), -0.89 % (-1.49, -0.29), and -0.74 % (-1.51, 0.029), respectively (p = 0.67 for control vs. grade, p = 0.76 for control vs. face). DISCUSSION: Feedback to patients with poorly controlled diabetes in the form of letter grades and faces did not differentially impact glycemic control at 6 months or participant perceptions of current control. These efforts to improve communication and patient understanding of disease management targets need further refinement to significantly impact diabetes outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT01143870.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.