Cited by 85Diabetes Management and EducationChronic Disease Management StrategiesDiabetes Management and Research

Diabetes nurse case management and motivational interviewing for change (DYNAMIC): Results of a 2‐year randomized controlled pragmatic trial (糖尿病护士病例管理以及促进改变的动机性会谈(DYNAMIC):一项为期2年的实用随机对照研究)

Open access
Gabbay, Robert A., Añel‐Tiangco, Raquel M., Dellasega, Cheryl, Mauger, David T., Adelman, Alan, Van Horn, Deborah H.A.·2013·Journal of Diabetes

Abstract

Background: The aim of the present study was to determine whether the addition of nurse case managers (NCMs) trained in motivational interviewing (MI) to usual care would result in improved outcomes in high‐risk type 2 diabetes patients. Methods: A 2‐year randomized controlled pragmatic trial randomized 545 patients to usual care control (n = 313) or those who received the intervention (n = 232) with additional practice‐embedded NCM care, including MI‐guided behavior change counseling. The NCMs received intensive MI training with ongoing fidelity assessment. Results: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was better in the intervention than usual care group (131 ± 15 vs. 135 ± 18 mm H g, respectively; P < 0.05). Improvements were seen in both the control and intervention groups in terms of H b A 1c (from 9.1% to 8.0% and from 8.8% to 7.8%, respectively), low‐density lipoprotein (LDL; from 127 to 100 mg/d L and from 128 to 102 mg/d L, respectively), and diastolic blood pressure (from 78 to 74 mm H g and from 80 to 74 mm H g, respectively). Depression symptom scores were better in the intervention group. The reduction in diabetes‐related distress approached statistical significance. Conclusions: The NCMs and MI improved SBP and complications screening. The large decrease in HbA1C and LDL in the control group may have obscured any further intervention effect. Although nurses prompted providers for medication titration, strategies to reduce provider clinical inertia may also be needed.

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 · 10.1111/1753-0407.12030

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Twenty-four RCTs examined the impact of interventions on health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

    “Twenty-four RCTs examined the impact of interventions on HRQOL”

    From Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice (2019) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Methods and Results describe one randomized trial that measured diabetes-specific quality of life (ADDQoL). The paper does not report that twenty-four RCTs examined HRQOL, so it supports the existence of one relevant trial but not the stated count. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Physical, mental or social functioning were measured in 25 RCTs.

    “Physical, mental or social functioning were measured in 25 RCTs”

    From Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice (2019) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Methods section (page unavailable) reports that this trial measured depression symptoms and diabetes-related quality of life. It does not report that physical, mental, or social functioning was measured across 25 RCTs; the cited paper describes a single trial. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Self-care activities within 7 days were measured in 4 RCTs using the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) questionnaire.

    “Self-care activities within 7 days were measured in 4 RCTs [41, 52, 54, 60, 102, 103] using the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) questionnaire”

    From Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice (2019) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Methods section says this randomized trial used the SDSCA questionnaire to assess diabetes self-management, supporting its inclusion as an example of an RCT using that measure. Our copy does not specify a seven-day recall period or establish the citing document’s count of four RCTs. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gabbay, R. A., Añel‐Tiangco, R. M., Dellasega, C., Mauger, D. T., Adelman, A., & Van Horn, D. H. A.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (US)
  • Van Horn Consulting West Deptford New Jersey USA
Corresponding author
Gabbay, Robert A.
Venue
Journal of Diabetes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-05-28
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
349-357
ISSN
  • 1753-0393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1753-0407
OpenAlex
W1521667429
Cited by
85
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Pennsylvania State University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Royal Holloway, University of London
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R18DK067495)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
nurse case management, motivational interviewing, type 2 diabetes, behavior change counseling, blood pressure control, glycemic control, LDL cholesterol, depression, diabetes distress, clinical inertia, dose titration
MeSH terms
Aged, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Lipoproteins, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse-Patient Relations, Nurses, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Case Management, Nurse's Role, Motivational Interviewing

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