Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31377711›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2019

Process evaluation of team-based care in people aged >65 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Joanie Sims Gould, Catherine Tong, Jessica Ly, Sara Vazirian, Adriaan Windt, Karim Khan

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. 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, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT02002143 naunknown statusnot on this map

Group Medical Visits (GMVs) in Primary Care: An RCT of Group-Based Versus Individual Appointments to Reduce HbA1c in Older People

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2014 to 2020Enrolled128ConditionsType 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM)ArmsGroup Appointments, Individual Appointments (IAs)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Joanie Sims GouldCentre for Hip Health and Mobility, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada simsg@mail.ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1260-5405
Catherine TongCentre for Hip Health and Mobility, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jessica LyCentre for Hip Health and Mobility, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Sara VazirianCentre for Hip Health and Mobility, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Adriaan WindtCentre for Hip Health and Mobility, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Karim KhanCentre for Hip Health and Mobility, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing globally and there is critical need develop interventions to improve health outcomes among older people. The Group Appointments in Primary Care (GAP) study was a randomised controlled trial designed to test the efficacy of a group and team-based medical visit programme to lower haemoglobin A1c among patients with T2DM. We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to implement the GAP intervention within a primary care setting, with an emphasis on patient experience. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsThis was a qualitative exploratory study. Data were gathered from semistructured interviews conducted with the first cohort of GAP study participants (n=15) at baseline and intervention completion. GAP participants were aged >65, diagnosed with T2DM and from one primary care clinic. The interview questions identified the patient perspectives and factors relating to their attendance at seven group medical visits that were part of the intervention programme. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

resultsWe identified four themes that captured participants' experiences: (1) Education: learning with professionals, learning with one another; (2) Social Support: common interests, common problems; (3) Setting: ease of location, ease of conversation and (4) Impact: expectations met, empowerment gained. The GAP intervention increased participants' self-reported diabetes literacy and self-management skills.

conclusionsWe learnt that: accessible community centres, not primary care offices, were the ideal location for GAP; the consistent leadership of the primary care physician was valued by participants; and, the content related to exercise and healthy diet were viewed as impactful. Also, learning was achieved through content delivered by clinical experts, and by T2DM experts with lived experience-the GAP peers. Our findings highlight the important role of group learning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02002143.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicPrimary Health CareProcess Assessment, Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overBritish ColumbiaCommunity Health CentersDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diet, HealthyExerciseGlycated HemoglobinHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLeadershipLearningPatient Care TeamGlycated Hemoglobingeneral diabetesgeriatric medicinequalitative researchteam-based care

Identifiers

PMID31377711
PMCPMC6687023

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.