Evidence mapPaperPMID 35455759Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022

Interprofessional Collaboration and Diabetes Management in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Mario Cesare Nurchis, Giorgio Sessa, Domenico Pascucci, Michele Sassano, Linda Lombi, Gianfranco Damiani

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mario Cesare NurchisUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9345-4292
Giorgio SessaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Domenico PascucciUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5804-2284
Michele SassanoUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3158-1827
Linda LombiUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 20123 Milan, Italy.
Gianfranco DamianiUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3028-6188
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global spread of diabetes poses serious threats to public health requiring a patient-centered approach based both on interprofessional collaboration (IPC) given by the cooperation of several different health professionals, and patients' perspective through the assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact of interprofessional collaboration interventions, for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care settings, through PROs. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted querying the PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases. Out of the 1961 papers initially retrieved, 19 met the inclusion criteria. Interprofessional collaboration is significantly associated with an increase in both patient's satisfaction (SMD 0.32 95% CI 0.05-0.59) and in the mental well-being component of the HRQoL (SMD 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.30), and there was also promising evidence supporting the association between an interprofessional approach and an increase in self-care and in generic and specific quality-of-life. No statistical differences were found, supporting the positive impact on IPC interventions on the physical component of the HRQoL, depression, emotional distress, and self-efficacy. In conclusion, the effect of IPC impacts positively on the few areas assessed by PROMs. Policymakers should promote the widespread adoption of a collaborative approach as well as to endorse an active engagement of patients across the whole process of care.

Indexed as

interprofessional collaborationpatient-reported outcomesprimary caretype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID35455759
PMCPMC9029958
OpenAlexW4224085772

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.