Cited by 237Diabetes Management and EducationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Computer-assisted intervention improves patient-centered diabetes care by increasing autonomy support.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a patient-centered, computer-assisted diabetes care intervention increased perceived autonomy support, perceived competence (from self-determination theory), and if these constructs mediated the effect of the intervention on ADA/NCQA recommended diabetes care outcomes. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of 866 adult type 2 diabetes patients in heterogeneous primary care settings in Colorado. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived autonomy support, perceived competence, patient satisfaction, glycemic control (HbA1c), ratio of total to HDL cholesterol, diabetes distress, and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: The computer-assisted intervention increased patient perception of autonomy support relative to a computer-based control condition ( p = .05). Change in perceived competence partially mediated the effects of increased autonomy support on the change in lipids, diabetes distress, and depressive symptoms. The construct of autonomy support was found to be separate from that of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: A patient-centered, computer-assisted intervention was effective in improving diabetes self-management outcomes, in part, because it increased patients' perception that their autonomy was supported which changed perceived competence. These findings support the self-determination model for health behavior change and the chronic care model and support the further study of the use of these technologies to motivate patients to improve their health outcomes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.26.6.728

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 237

Metadata

Authors
Williams, G. C., Lynch, M., & Glasgow, R. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • University of South Florida Sarasota–Manatee (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2007-11
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
728-734
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2047333489
Cited by
236
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 16
FWCI
6.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UR Research (University of Rochester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Keywords
computer-based intervention, type 2 diabetes, autonomy support, perceived competence, self-determination theory, patient-centered care, diabetes self-management, glycemic control, HbA1c, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, lipid ratios, patient satisfaction, Chronic Care Model, health behavior change
MeSH terms
Adult, Colorado, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Regression Analysis, Self Care, Social Support, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Patient-Centered Care, Personal Autonomy

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