Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28637744›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Group clinics for young adults with diabetes in an ethnically diverse, socioeconomically deprived setting (TOGETHER study): protocol for a realist review, co-design and mixed methods, participatory evaluation of a new care model.

Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Dougal Hargreaves, Grainne Colligan, Ann Hagell, Anita Patel, Desirée Campbell-Richards, Russell M Viner, Shanti Vijayaraghavan, Martin Marshall, Trisha Greenhalgh and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementing video group consultations in general practice during COVID-19: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Dougal HargreavesUCL Great Ormond St. Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Grainne ColliganCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Ann HagellAssociation for Young People's Health, London, UK.
Anita PatelCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Desirée Campbell-RichardsBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Russell M VinerUCL Great Ormond St. Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Shanti VijayaraghavanBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Martin MarshallDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah FinerCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/15/25/20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionYoung adults with diabetes often report dissatisfaction with care and have poor diabetes-related health outcomes. As diabetes prevalence continues to rise, group-based care could provide a sustainable alternative to traditional one-to-one consultations, by engaging young people through life stage-, context- and culturally-sensitive approaches. In this study, we will co-design and evaluate a group-based care model for young adults with diabetes and complex health and social needs in socioeconomically deprived areas. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This participatory study will include three phases. In phase 1, we will carry out a realist review to synthesise the literature on group-based care for young adults with diabetes. This theory-driven understanding will provide the basis for phase 2, where we will draw on experience-based co-design methodologies to develop a new, group-based care model for young adults (aged <25 years, under the care of adult diabetes services). In phase 3, we will use a researcher-in-residence approach to implement and evaluate the co-designed group clinic model and compare with traditional care. We will employ qualitative (observations in clinics, patient and staff interviews and document analysis) and quantitative methods (eg, biological markers, patient enablement instrument and diabetes distress scale), including a cost analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service ethics approval has been granted (reference 17/NI/0019). The project will directly inform service redesign to better meet the needs of young adults with diabetes in socioeconomically deprived areas and may guide a possible cluster-randomised trial, powered to clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Findings from this study may be transferable to other long-term conditions and/or age groups. Project outputs will include briefing statements, summaries and academic papers, tailored for different audiences, including people living with diabetes, clinicians, policy makers and strategic decision makers. REGISTRATION DETAILS: PROSPERO (CRD42017058726).

Indexed as

Poverty AreasResearch DesignAdolescentAmbulatory CareCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes MellitusHumansProgram EvaluationReview Literature as TopicYoung Adultco-design.diabetesevaluationgroup clinicsrealist reviewyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID28637744
PMCPMC5726054

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.