Cited by 176Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Comparative Effectiveness of Goal Setting in Diabetes Mellitus Group Clinics: Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Naik, Aanand D., Palmer, Nynikka, Petersen, Nancy J., Street, Richard L., Rao, Radha, Suarez-Almazor, Maria, Haidet, Paul·2011·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) group clinics can effectively control hypertension, but data to support glycemic control are equivocal. This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of 2 DM group clinic interventions on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels in primary care. METHODS: Eighty-seven participants were recruited from a DM registry of a single regional Veterans Affairs medical center to participate in an open, randomized comparative effectiveness study. Two primary care-based DM group interventions of 3 months' duration were compared. Empowering Patients in Care (EPIC) was a clinician-led, patient-centered group clinic consisting of 4 sessions on setting self-management action plans (diet, exercise, home monitoring, medications, etc) and communicating about progress with action plans. The comparison intervention consisted of group education sessions with a DM educator and dietician followed by an additional visit with one's primary care provider. Hemoglobin A(1c) levels were compared after intervention and at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Participants in the EPIC intervention had significantly greater improvements in HbA(1c) levels immediately following the active intervention (8.86%-8.04% vs 8.74%-8.70% of total hemoglobin; mean [SD] between-group difference 0.67% [1.3%]; P=.03), and these differences persisted at the 1 year follow-up (0.59% [1.4%], P=.05). A repeated-measures analysis using all study time points found a significant time-by-treatment interaction effect on HbA(1c) levels favoring the EPIC intervention (F(2,85)=3.55; P=.03). The effect of the time-by-treatment interaction seems to be partially mediated by DM self-efficacy (F(1,85)=10.39; P=.002). CONCLUSION: Primary care-based DM group clinics that include structured goal-setting approaches to self-management can significantly improve HbA(1c) levels after intervention and maintain improvements for 1 year. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00481286.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.70

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A personalized educational approach leveraging a multidisciplinary team leads to greater self-management skills.

    “A personalized educational approach to persons with DM, leveraging members of a multidisciplinary team, will lead to greater self-management skills.1459–1463”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [1462]

    The Methods (Interventions; page not available) describe personalized goals and action plans in the EPIC intervention, and the Results (Outcome Measures; page not available) report greater diabetes self-efficacy at three months than with traditional education. But the EPIC sessions were directed by primary care physicians; the nurse educator and dietician led the traditional-education comparator. The paper therefore does not establish that a personalized approach leveraging a multidisciplinary team led to greater self-management skills, and the self-efficacy difference was not significant at one year. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Diabetes self-management education and support interventions incorporating behavioral strategies were associated with better outcomes.

    “Better outcomes were reported for DSMES interventions that were more than 10 h over the course of 6-12 months (20), included ongoing support (14,32), were culturally (33)(34)(35) and age appropriate (36,37), were tailored to individual needs and preferences, addressed psychosocial issues, and incorporated behavioral strategies (15,26,38,39).”
  • Diabetes self-management education and support interventions tailored to individual needs and preferences were associated with better outcomes.

    “Better outcomes were reported for DSMES interventions that were more than 10 h over the course of 6-12 months (20), included ongoing support (14,32), were culturally (33)(34)(35) and age appropriate (36,37), were tailored to individual needs and preferences, addressed psychosocial issues, and incorporated behavioral strategies (15,26,38,39).”
  • Diabetes self-management education and support interventions addressing psychosocial issues were associated with better outcomes.

    “Better outcomes were reported for DSMES interventions that were more than 10 h over the course of 6-12 months (20), included ongoing support (14,32), were culturally (33)(34)(35) and age appropriate (36,37), were tailored to individual needs and preferences, addressed psychosocial issues, and incorporated behavioral strategies (15,26,38,39).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]Twisk JW Applied longitudinal data analysis for epidemiology New York Cambridge University Press 2003

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naik, A. D., Palmer, N., Petersen, N. J., Street, R. L., Rao, R., Suarez-Almazor, M., & Haidet, P.
Affiliations
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2011-03-14
Volume
171
Issue
5
Pages
453-9
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063557707
Cited by
176
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 18
FWCI
15.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U18HS016093)
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG027144)
  • National Cancer Institute (R25CA057712, R25CA122061)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, goal setting, HbA1c, glycemic control, diabetes self-efficacy, patient-centered care, primary care, veterans, diabetes education
MeSH terms
Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Planning, Primary Health Care, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review