Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving Hypertension Control in Diabetes Mellitus: The Effects of Collaborative and Proactive Health Communication

Open access
Naik, Aanand D., Kallen, Michael A., Walder, Annette, Street, Richard L.·2008·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Communication between patients and clinicians using collaborative goals and treatment plans may overcome barriers to achieving hypertension control in routine diabetes mellitus care. We assessed the interrelation of patient–clinician communication factors to determine their independent associations with hypertension control in diabetes care. Methods and Results— We identified 566 older adults with diabetes mellitus and hypertension at the DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Tex. Clinical and pharmacy data were collected, and a patient questionnaire was sent to all participants. A total of 212 individuals returned surveys. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of patient characteristics, self-management behaviors, and communication factors on hypertension control. Three communication factors had significant associations with hypertension control. Two factors, patients’ endorsement of a shared decision-making style (odds ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.57) and proactive communication with one’s clinician about abnormal results of blood pressure self-monitoring (odds ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 3.26), had direct, independent associations in multivariate regression. Path analysis was used to investigate the direct and indirect effects of communication factors and hypertension control. Decision-making style (β=0.20, P <0.01) and proactive communication (β=0.50, P <0.0001) again demonstrated direct effects on hypertension control. A third factor, clinicians’ use of collaborative communication when setting treatment goals, had a total effect on hypertension control of 0.16 ( P <0.05) through its direct effects on decision-making style (β=0.28, P <0.001) and proactive communication (β=0.22, P <0.01). Conclusions— Three communication factors were found to have significant associations with hypertension control. Patient–clinician communication that facilitates collaborative blood pressure goals and patients’ input related to the progress of treatment may improve rates of hypertension control in diabetes care independent of medication adherence.

Overview

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.107.724005

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Naik, A. D., Kallen, M. A., Walder, A., & Street, R. L.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2008-03-18
Volume
117
Issue
11
Pages
1361-1368
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2028110552
Cited by
190
References
8
FWCI
26.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving Hypertension Control in Diabetes Mellitus: The Effects of Collaborative and Proactive Health Communication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.107.724005
The paper
Naik, A. D., Kallen, M. A., Walder, A., & Street, R. L. (2008). Improving Hypertension Control in Diabetes Mellitus: The Effects of Collaborative and Proactive Health Communication. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.724005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.