Cited by 107Diabetes Management and EducationChronic Disease Management StrategiesNursing Roles and Practices

Nurse case management improves blood pressure, emotional distress and diabetes complication screening

Gabbay, Robert A., Lendel, Irina, Saleem, Tipufaiz M., Shaeffer, Gregory, Adelman, Alan M., Mauger, David T., Collins, Mary, Polomano, Rosemary C.·2006·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract

We studied the impact of nurse case management (NCM) on blood pressure (BP), hemoglobin A1C, lipids, and diabetes complication screening. A 1-year randomized-controlled trial was conducted in two primary care clinics of the Penn State Hershey Medical Center. Diabetes patients were randomized to control group (CG) (n=182) who received usual care by their primary care provider and intervention group (IG) (n=150) who received additional NCM care, including self-management education, and implementation of diabetes guidelines. Primary outcomes included BP, A1C, lipid, process measures, and secondary outcome was diabetes-related emotional distress as assessed by Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID). BP significantly decreased from 137/77 to 129/72 in IG as compared to an increase from 136/77 to 138/79 in CG after 1 year. PAID scores improved significantly in IG (from 23 to 10) due to reduced emotional stress. A1C (7.4) and LDL (105) were unaffected. Complications screening significantly improved in IG compared to CG: opthalmologic exam 26 to 68%, foot exam 47 to 64%, and nephropathy screening 34 to 72%. NCM improved BP, diabetes-related emotional distress, and process measures in primary care. Unchanged A1C and lipids might be due to a threshold effect. Intervention based upon initial risk assessment may prove more cost-effective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2005.05.002

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gabbay, R. A., Lendel, I., Saleem, T. M., Shaeffer, G., Adelman, A. M., Mauger, D. T., Collins, M., & Polomano, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-01
Volume
71
Issue
1
Pages
28-35
ISSN
0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999735316
Cited by
107
References
4
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pennsylvania State University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
Keywords
nurse case management, diabetes mellitus, blood pressure control, glycemic control, HbA1c, serum lipids, diabetes complications screening, diabetic eye examination, diabetic foot examination, diabetic nephropathy screening, emotional distress, Problem Areas in Diabetes, self-management education, diabetes guidelines, primary care, risk assessment
MeSH terms
Aged, Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Case Management, Diabetes Complications

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