Trial reportBMJ open2015
Group Medical Visits (GMVs) in primary care: an RCT of group-based versus individual appointments to reduce HbA1c in older people.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02002143 (Group Medical Visits), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Group Medical Visits (GMVs) in Primary Care: An RCT of Group-Based Versus Individual Appointments to Reduce HbA1c in Older People
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Process evaluation of team-based care in people aged >65 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus.BMJ open · 2019Trial
- Group versus Individual Care in Patients with Long-Standing Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: A One-Year Prospective Noninferiority Study in a Tertiary Diabetes Clinic.Journal of diabetes research · 2018Trial
- The Quebec Diabetes Empowerment Group Program: Program Description and Considerations Regarding Feasibility and Acceptability of Implementation in Primary Health Care Settings.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Article
- Article
- New model for diabetes primary health care based on patient empowerment and the right to preventive health: the MIDE program.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2017Article
- Did You Hear What I Meant to Say?Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) affects more than 1.1 million Canadians aged ≥65 years. Group Medical Visits are an emerging health service delivery method. Recent systematic reviews show that they can significantly reduce glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, but Group Visits have not been evaluated within primary care. We intend to determine the clinical effectiveness, quality of life and economic implications of Group Medical Visits within a primary care setting for older people with T2DM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 2-year proof-of-concept, single-blinded (measurement team) randomised control trial to test the efficacy of Group Medical Visits in an urban Canadian primary care setting. Participants ≥65 years old with T2DM (N=128) will be equally randomised to either eight groups of eight patients each (Group Medical Visits; Intervention) or to Individual visits (Standard Care; Controls). Those administering cointerventions are not blinded to group assignment. Our sample size is based on estimates of variance (±1.4% for HbA1c) and effect size (0.9/1.4=0.6) from the literature and from our own preliminary data. Forty participants per group will provide a β likelihood of 0.80, assuming an α of 0.05. A conservative estimation of an effect size of 0.7/1.4 changes the N in the power calculation to 59 per group. Hence, we aim to enrol 64 participants in each study arm. We will use intention-to-treat analysis and compare mean HbA1c (% glycosylated HbA1c) (primary outcome) of Intervention/Control participants at 12 months, 24 months and 1 year postintervention on selected clinical, patient-rated and economic measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02002143.
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.