Trial reportBMC primary care2025
Primary care practices' choice of implementation strategy for continuous glucose monitoring for patients with diabetes: a multiple methods study within a larger hybrid type-3 effectiveness-implementation study.
Trial report in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05336214 (PRimary Care Education and Practice Adoption Resource Evaluation for Continuous Glucose Monitoring), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
PRimary Care Education and Practice Adoption Resource Evaluation for Continuous Glucose Monitoring
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Coverage Expansion: Exploring Persistent Barriers to CGM Utilization in the Clinical Environment.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Article
- Implementing ADA 2026 diabetes technology recommendations: opportunities and challenges for quality improvement in real-world care.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
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
backgroundMost diabetes care occurs in primary care. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is associated with clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial benefits. While CGM uptake in primary care is increasing, understanding models to support CGM use in diverse primary care practices is needed. The PREPARE 4 CGM study evaluated strategies to implement CGM in primary care. We compared characteristics among practices choosing a practice-led, self-paced CGM implementation strategy or referral to a virtual CGM implementation service that provided patients and their referring primary care practices CGM initiation and data interpretation support for at least six months.
methodsColorado PC practices interested in implementing CGM enrolled and chose to use the American Academy of Family Physicians Transformation in Practice Series (TIPS): CGM implementation modules or refer patients to a virtual CGM initiation and education service designed and staffed by a primary care multi-disciplinary team. In this multiple methods study, baseline practice characteristics were compared across study arms using chi-square and t-tests. Semi-structured interviews with practice members provided additional context to explain study arm selection.
resultsOf 76 practices enrolled, 46 chose self-paced implementation using TIPS modules, 16 of which (35%) had a diabetes care and education specialist (DCES) in the practice; of the 30 that chose the virtual CGM initiation service, none (0%) had a DCES, X
conclusionsPrimary care practices were eager to implement CGM. All practices with a DCES chose to implement CGM on their own; of the practices without a DCES, implementation method selection was evenly split (half chose to implement on their own, half chose virCIS). DCESs may have potential as diabetes technology champions in primary care practices. Referral to the virtual CGM implementation service allowed access to a certified DCES and multidisciplinary team for practices without them. As many practices without a DCES also chose to implement CGM on their own, multiple models may be necessary to foster CGM implementation in primary care.
trial registrationThis project was reviewed and approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB; Protocol 21-4269) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on March 23, 2022 (NCT05336214).
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.