Cited by 141Diabetes Management and EducationHealth Policy Implementation SciencePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

A randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to improve the care given in general practice to type II diabetic patients: Patient outcomes and professional ability to change behaviour

Pill, R·1998·Family Practice

Abstract

AIM: Our objective was to evaluate the effect of training in a patient-centred intervention for GPs and practice nurses on outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes. METHODS: We carried out a randomized controlled trial within general practices as the basis for randomization and a before-and-after design for measures of patient outcome. A parallel process study examined the use of the method by professionals. The study was carried out in 29 general practices in South Glamorgan who had participated for at least 2 years in a local scheme of audit and CME in relation to Type II diabetes care. The subjects were 252 Type II diabetic patients recruited by 15 experimental and 14 control practices. The main outcome measures were changes in glycosylated haemoglobin, patient satisfaction with care and treatment, functional health status and professional ability to apply the intervention. RESULTS: Professionals adopted the innovative method with enthusiasm, but after 2 years only 19% continued to apply the method systematically. The trial was, therefore, unable to demonstrate significant biochemical or functional improvements. This highlights the need to understand the factors associated with professional uptake and subsequent ability to sustain changes in behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of this behavioural intervention remains unproved, despite its acceptability to professional staff. Detailed and prolonged development and testing of behavioural interventions is an essential first step before embarking on randomized controlled trials which involve complex behavioural changes in professionals or patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/15.3.229

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pill, R.
Affiliations
University of Wales (GB)
Corresponding author
Pill, R
Venue
Family Practice
Published
1998-06-01
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
229-235
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2035471619
Cited by
140
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, general practice, patient-centered interventions, general practitioners, practice nurses, glycosylated haemoglobin, patient satisfaction, functional status, continuing medical education, diabetes care quality
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Education, Medical, Continuing, Family Practice, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse Practitioners, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Professional-Patient Relations, Health Behavior, Patient Satisfaction, Patient-Centered Care

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