Cited by 25Diabetes Management and EducationChronic Disease Management StrategiesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Lessons learnt from a cluster-randomised trial evaluating the effectiveness of Self-Management Support (SMS) delivered by practice nurses in routine diabetes care

Open access
van Dijk-de Vries, Anneke, van Bokhoven, Marloes A, Winkens, Bjorn, Terluin, Berend, Knottnerus, J André, van der Weijden, Trudy, van Eijk, Jacques Th M·2015·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of biopsychosocial Self-Management Support (SMS) delivered by practice nurses in routine diabetes care. Design: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial within a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design. Practice nurses were cluster-randomised. Setting: A regional care group in the Netherlands consisting of 77 family practices. The study involved practice nurses (n=40) providing care to approximately 4000 patients with diabetes. Participants: Patients with type 2 diabetes (n=264) selected by a self-administered questionnaire aimed at measuring emotional distress and diabetes-related reduced daily functioning. Intervention: Practice nurses in the intervention arm (n=19) were trained to integrate SMS into their routine consultations. SMS included detection of patients with emotional distress and reduced daily functioning, and supporting them when needed through problem solving and reattribution techniques. Practice nurses in the control arm (n=21) provided usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was a dichotomised score on a Visual Analogue Scale that measured the perceived effect of diabetes on daily functioning. Secondary measures included patients’ diabetes-related distress, quality of life, autonomy and participation, self-efficacy, self-management and glycaemic control. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 4-month and 12-month follow-ups. Results: Only 16 of the 117 patients in the intervention arm (14%) who were found eligible by the posted research-driven screening questionnaire were detected by their practice nurses. Extra consultations for the self-management support were delivered to only 11 study participants. In the control arm, 147 patients received usual care. Multilevel analyses showed no significant differences in outcomes between the intervention and control arms. Conclusions: SMS in its present form was not effective. The research-driven screening to select trial participants appeared to be inconsistent with nurse-led detection in routine practice. Adequate follow-up moments need to be built in to overcome barriers resulting from tension between the implementation and effectiveness parts of hybrid studies. Trial registration number: Current Controlled Trials NTR2764.

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/bmjopen-2014-007014

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • 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 [57]

    The Methods > Outcomes and Results > Baseline characteristics passages show that this trial measured physical and mental quality-of-life components and social participation. They do not support the claim that these outcomes were measured in 25 RCTs; the cited paper reports a single cluster-randomised trial. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Seven RCTs reported non-significant improvements in self-efficacy.

    “Seven RCTs reported non-significant improvements in self-efficacy”

    From Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice (2019) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Results (Secondary outcomes, Table 4; page unavailable) show a small, non-significant positive self-efficacy effect at four months (+0.15, p=0.81). At 12 months the effect was negative (−0.69, p=0.27). This paper reports one cluster-randomised trial, so it cannot establish that seven RCTs reported improvements. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 [57]

    The Results sections report outcomes from this paper’s cluster-randomised diabetes-care trial, including quality-of-life measures, but do not report a set of 24 RCTs. Searches for “Twenty-four RCTs” and “24 randomized controlled trials” found no passage supporting that count. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Changes in perceived self-efficacy were reported in 14 studies.

    “Changes in perceived self-efficacy were reported in 14 studies”

    From Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice (2019) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Methods > Outcomes section describes a self-efficacy measure, and Results > Secondary outcomes reports self-efficacy results from this trial. Neither section reports a count of studies; searches for the quoted sentence and for “14 studies” found no passage supporting that count. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [12]Rutten GEHM, De Grauw WJC, Nijpels G, et al. NHG-Standaard Diabetes mellitus type 2 (Tweede herziening) [NHG Practice Guideline Diabetes mellitus type 2 (Second revision)]. Huisarts Wet 2006; 49: 137– 52

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Dijk-de Vries, A., van Bokhoven, M. A., Winkens, B., Terluin, B., Knottnerus, J. A., van der Weijden, T., & van Eijk, J. T. M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  • Department of Methodology and Statistics, Maastricht University, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Department of Social Medicine, Maastricht University, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-06
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
e007014
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2310238495
Cited by
25
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Diabetes Fonds (2010.13.1366)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
self-management support, type 2 diabetes, practice nurses, nurse-led care, diabetes distress, emotional distress screening, daily functioning, glycemic control, self-efficacy, quality of life, implementation effectiveness, hybrid effectiveness-implementation study, primary care
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nurses, Primary Health Care, Self Care, Stress, Psychological, Cluster Analysis, Treatment Outcome

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