Cited by 113Diabetes Management and EducationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and Research

Effectiveness of general practice based, practice nurse led telephone coaching on glycaemic control of type 2 diabetes: the patient engagement and coaching for health (peach) pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Open access
Blackberry, I. D., Furler, J. S., Best, J. D., Chondros, P., Vale, M., Walker, C., Dunning, T., Segal, L. +4 more·2013·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of goal focused telephone coaching by practice nurses in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in Australia. DESIGN: Prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial, with general practices as the unit of randomisation. SETTING: General practices in Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 59 of 69 general practices that agreed to participate recruited sufficient patients and were randomised. Of 829 patients with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.5% in the past 12 months) who were assessed for eligibility, 473 (236 from 30 intervention practices and 237 from 29 control practices) agreed to participate. INTERVENTION: Practice nurses from intervention practices received two days of training in a telephone coaching programme, which aimed to deliver eight telephone and one face to face coaching episodes per patient. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was mean absolute change in HbA1c between baseline and 18 months in the intervention group compared with the control group. RESULTS: The intervention and control patients were similar at baseline. None of the practices dropped out over the study period; however, patient attrition rates were 5% in each group (11/236 and 11/237 in the intervention and control group, respectively). The median number of coaching sessions received by the 236 intervention patients was 3 (interquartile range 1-5), of which 25% (58/236) did not receive any coaching sessions. At 18 months' follow-up the effect on glycaemic control did not differ significantly (mean difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.20 to 0.24, P=0.84) between the intervention and control groups, adjusted for HbA1c measured at baseline and the clustering. Other biochemical and clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A practice nurse led telephone coaching intervention implemented in the real world primary care setting produced comparable outcomes to usual primary care in Australia. The addition of a goal focused coaching role onto the ongoing generalist role of a practice nurse without prescribing rights was found to be ineffective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50662837.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.f5272

Cites

63 of 63 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

2 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [47]Walker C, Furler J, Blackberry I, Dunbar J, Young D, Best J. The delivery of a telephone coaching programme to people with type 2 diabetes by practice nurses in Victoria, Australia: a qualitative evaluation. J Nurs Healthcare Chronic Illn 2011; 3: 419-26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blackberry, I. D., Furler, J. S., Best, J. D., Chondros, P., Vale, M., Walker, C., Dunning, T., Segal, L., Dunbar, J., Audehm, R., Liew, D., & Young, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Barwon Health (AU)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Blackberry, I. D.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-09-18
Volume
347
Issue
sep18 1
Pages
f5272-f5272
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021416630
Cited by
113
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
8.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (359374, 566586)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, telephone coaching, practice nurses, primary care, patient engagement, coaching effectiveness, patient dropout
MeSH terms
Aged, Communication, Counseling, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse-Patient Relations, Telephone, Victoria, Practice Patterns, Nurses', General Practice

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