Cited by 80Nursing Roles and PracticesDiabetes Management and EducationPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Diabetes Care Processes and Outcomes in Patients Treated by Nurse Practitioners or Physicians

Lenz, Elizabeth R., Mundinger, Mary O'Neil, Hopkins, Sarah C., Lin, Susan X., Smolowitz, Janice L.·2002·The Diabetes Educator

Abstract

PURPOSE the purpose of this study was to compare selected diabetes care processes and outcomes of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians (MDs) in the primary care of adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS Adults with type 2 diabetes and no regular source of primary care were enrolled from the emergency room and randomized to an NP or MD practice. Chart reviews were conducted to assess processes of care; patient interviews and hemoglobin Al C (Al C) testing were performed to measure patient outcomes. RESULTS NPs were more likely than MDs to document provision of general diabetes education and education about nutrition, weight, exercise, and medications. They were more likely to document patient height, urinalyses results, and Al C values. No differences were found in documenting current medications; alcohol, illicit drug, or tobacco use; depression; weight and blood pressure; foot and cardiovascular exams; blood glucose and creatinine testing; or referral to ophthalmologists. No differences were found in patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS This study provides preliminary evidence of interdisciplinary differences in the processes of care employed by primary care NPs and MDs in caring for patients with type 2 diabetes. NPs documented the provision of diabetes education and selected monitoring tests more frequently than MDs; however, these differences were not reflected in 6-month patient outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/014572170202800413

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lenz, E. R., Mundinger, M. O., Hopkins, S. C., Lin, S. X., & Smolowitz, J. L.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Mundinger, Mary O'Neil
Venue
The Diabetes Educator
Published
2002-07
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
590-598
ISSN
  • 0145-7217 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-6063
OpenAlex
W1973817910
Cited by
80
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, nurse practitioners, physician care, primary care, glycemic control, HbA1c, diabetes education, health care documentation, patient outcomes, interdisciplinary comparison
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Medical Audit, Medical History Taking, Middle Aged, New York, Nurse Practitioners, Nursing Assessment, Nursing Audit, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Education as Topic, Physicians, Family, Primary Health Care, Nursing Evaluation Research

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