The DOI matches its Crossref record.
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
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“while four made no such adjustments (Alamo 2002; McLean 2004; Pill 1998; Meland 1997).”
From Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations (2012) · cites this paper as Pill 1998
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kirk, J. M. W., MacDonald, A., Lavender, P., Dean, J. M., & Rubin, G. (2017) · Biomedicine Hub · doi:10.1159/000480347 · Cited by 3,902
Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Rubak, S., Sandbæk, A., Lauritzen, T., & Christensen, B. (2005) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 1,841
National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education
Funnell, M. M., Brown, T. L., Childs, B. P., Haas, L. B., Hosey, G. M., Jensen, B., Maryniuk, M. D., Peyrot, M. F., Piette, J. D., Reader, D., et al. (2008) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc09-s087 · Cited by 1,363
Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes
O'Brien, M. A., Rogers, S., Jamtvedt, G., Oxman, A. D., Odgaard-Jensen, J., Kristoffersen, D. T., Forsetlund, L., Bainbridge, D., Freemantle, N., Davis, D., et al. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000409.pub2 · Cited by 1,279
Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations
Dwamena, F., Holmes-Rovner, M., Gaulden, C. M., Jorgenson, S., Sadigh, G., Sikorskii, A., Lewin, S., Smith, R. C., Coffey, J., Olomu, A., et al. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003267.pub2 · Cited by 1,227
Metadata
- Authors
- Pill, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Wales (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Pill, R
- Venue
- Family Practice
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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 › Medicine › Family Practice › 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