Trial reportJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
The Impact of Implementing Virtual Diabetes Group Visits on Staff and Provider Wellbeing, Job Satisfaction, and Burnout: A Mixed Methods Analysis.
Trial report in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleFew have assessed the impact of group visits (GVs), or shared medical appointments, on community health centre (CHC) staff and provider burnout, wellness, and job satisfaction. AIMS AND
objectivesThis study assesses the impact of diabetes GV implementation on staff and provider morale and burnout.
methodsIt is a pre-post study from a larger cluster randomised trial. Two cohorts of providers and staff from 13 Midwestern CHC clinics implemented in-person (N = 39) and virtual (N = 31) GVs for adults with diabetes. Semi-structured interviews (post-implementation) and surveys (pre and post-implementation) were conducted with staff and providers in both cohorts to assess changes in burnout, staff morale, and job satisfaction, along with reported benefits and burdens of GVs. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts and significance testing for survey data was then performed.
resultsInterview data came from the in-person cohort (N = 15) and the virtual cohort (N = 19). Survey data were collected from a total of 70 respondents from the in-person (N = 39) and virtual (N = 31) cohorts. Key results include reported improved relationships with colleagues ('it has made our professional relationships stronger and I feel more comfortable talking about other things, as well'.), strengthened connections with patients ('We were able to help patients on a deeper level and provide more detail and one-on-one care'.), and individual reward ('Morale has increased. They're contributing and doing something positive for the patients'.). When asked about in-person versus virtual GVs, respondents noted they preferred in-person care but appreciated the flexibility virtual care afforded. Survey results revealed improved job satisfaction in the 2018 cohort and improved morale in the 2020 cohort, as well as perceived benefits including increased interprofessional collaboration and increased connection to patients.
conclusionsImplementation of GVs in the CHC setting impacted key areas of burnout, including relationships, job attachment, and feelings of meaningful contribution in the workplace among providers and staff. Future clinic-based implementation studies may consider measuring staff and provider well-being as part of the evaluation.
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.