Cited by 95Diabetes Management and EducationPrimary Care and Health OutcomesChronic Disease Management Strategies

A practical randomized trial to improve diabetes care

Open access
Glasgow, Russell E., Nutting, Paul A., King, Diane K., Nelson, Candace C., Cutter, Gary, Gaglio, Bridget, Rahm, Alanna Kulchak, Whitesides, Holly +1 more·2004·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Objective There is a well-documented gap between diabetes care guidelines and the services received by patients in almost all health care settings. This project reports initial results from a computer-assisted, patient-centered intervention to improve the level of recommended services received by patients from a wide variety of primary care providers.Design and settings Eight hundred eighty-six patients with type 2 diabetes under the care of 52 primary care physicians participated in the Diabetes Priority Program. Physicians were stratified and randomized to intervention or control conditions and evaluated on 2 primary outcomes: number of recommended laboratory screenings and recommended patient-centered care activities completed. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Problem Areas in Diabetes scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression scale, and the RE-AIM framework was used to evaluate potential for dissemination.Results The program was well-implemented and significantly improved both number of recommended laboratory assays (3.4 vs 3.1; P <.001) and patient-centered aspects of diabetes care patients received (3.6 vs 3.2; P <.001) compared to those in randomized control practices. Activities that were increased most were foot exams (follow-up rates of 80% vs 52%; P <.003) and nutrition counseling (76% vs 52%; P <.001).Conclusions Patients are very willing to participate in a brief computer-assisted intervention that is effective in enhancing quality of diabetes care. Staff in primary care offices can consistently deliver an intervention of this nature, but most physicians were unwilling to participate in this translation research study.

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/j.1525-1497.2004.30425.x

Cites

29 of 29 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Joyner L, McNeeley S, Kahn R. ADA's provider recognition program. HMO Pract. 1997;11:168 -70.
  2. Amthauer H, Gaglio B, Glasgow RE, King DK. Strategies and lessons learned in patient recruitment during a diabetes self- management program conducted in a primary care setting. Diabetes Educ. 2003;29:673 -81.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glasgow, R. E., Nutting, P. A., King, D. K., Nelson, C. C., Cutter, G., Gaglio, B., Rahm, A. K., Whitesides, H., & Amthauer, H.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Center for Research Strategies (US)
  • Cooper Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Glasgow, Russell E.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2004-12
Volume
19
Issue
12
Pages
1167-1174
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2045207173
Cited by
94
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS-10123, R18 HS010123)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, diabetes care quality, computer-based intervention, patient-centered care, primary care, laboratory screening, nutrition counseling, diabetes guidelines, Problem Areas in Diabetes, depression, RE-AIM framework, dissemination, translation research
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Counseling, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Foot, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Quality of Health Care, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 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