ArticleScientific reports2026
Association between a structured training programme and self-reported clinical inertia in type 2 diabetes management in primary care.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This non-randomised, post-intervention–only controlled cross-sectional study examined the association between participation in the Turkish Diabetes Foundation’s face-to-face training and patient counselling programme (Diabetes 01) and self-reported clinical decision-making among primary care physicians managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The programme was implemented in Adana, southern Turkey, between November 2021 and June 2022. After programme completion, a standardised questionnaire evaluating treatment initiation, treatment modification, and referral practices was administered to 118 trained family physicians (Group A) and 516 untrained physicians (Group B). Compared with untrained physicians, trained physicians reported a lower likelihood of direct referral to higher-level care (3·4% vs. 13·0%; odds ratio [OR] 0·24, 95% CI 0·08–0·66) and reported fewer referrals at relatively low HbA1c thresholds (13·6% vs. 32·0%; OR 0·33, 95% CI 0·19–0·58). Conversely, the likelihood of referral was greater among trained physicians in the context of very high HbA1c levels (e.g., > 10·0%). Trained physicians were also more likely to report initiating pharmacological treatment at lower HbA1c thresholds, including HbA1c values just above 6·5% (OR 1·55, 95% CI 1·03–2·32). No significant between-group differences were observed in treatment intensification thresholds or preferred target HbA1c levels. Overall, participation in the Diabetes 01 programme was associated with a modest shift toward earlier treatment initiation and reduced self-reported referral at earlier disease stages. However, causal inference is limited, and effects on actual clinical practice and patient outcomes cannot be determined.
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.