ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2025
The Impact of a Hands-on Workshop on Continuous Glucose Monitor Prescribing in a Family Medicine Residency.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become an essential tool in managing diabetes, offering real-time insights that improve patient engagement, decision-making, and clinical outcomes. Despite its benefits, CGM is underutilized in primary care due to perceived complexity and time constraints. This study aimed to enhance health care professionals' understanding of and confidence in prescribing CGM technology through two multidisciplinary, hands-on workshops. Methods: A total of 51 participants, including family medicine residents, faculty, clinical staff, and pharmacists, attended hands-on workshops and wore a CGM for 10-14 days. We analyzed prescribing patterns using EHR data to compare CGM orders placed before and after the workshops. Additionally, we evaluated pre- and postworkshop surveys' changes in participants' comfort, knowledge, and likelihood of recommending CGMs to patients. Results: Results showed a 31% improvement in participants' prescribing patterns of CGMs after holding the workshops. Qualitative feedback highlighted insights into device usability, blood sugar patterns, and patient counseling. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the value of experiential learning in improving health care providers' competence with diabetes technologies. Future research should explore the long-term impact of such training on clinical practice and patient outcomes.
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.