Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient Adherence Improves Glycemic Control

Rhee, Mary K., Slocum, Wrenn, Ziemer, David C., Culler, Steven D., Cook, Curtiss B., El-Kebbi, Imad M., Gallina, Daniel L., Barnes, Catherine, Phillips, Lawrence S.·2005·The Diabetes Educator

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of appointment keeping and medication adherence on HbA1c. Methods A retrospective evaluation was performed in 1560 patients with type 2 diabetes who presented for a new visit to the Grady Diabetes Clinic between 1991 and 2001 and returned for a follow-up visit and HbA1c after 1 year of care. Appointment keeping was assessed by the number of scheduled intervening visits that were kept, and medication adherence was assessed by the percentage of visits in which self-reported diabetes medication use was as recommended at the preceding visit. Results The patients had an average age of 55 years, body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m2, diabetes duration of 4.6 years, and baseline HbA1c of 9.1%. Ninety percent were African American, and 63% were female. Those who kept more intervening appointments had lower HbA1c levels after 12 months of care (7.6% with 6-7 intervening visits vs 9.7% with 0 intervening visits). Better medication adherence was also associated with lower HbA1c levels after 12 months of care (7.8% with 76%-100% adherence). After adjusting for age, gender, race, BMI, diabetes duration, and diabetes therapy in multivariate linear regression analysis, the benefits of appointment keeping and medication adherence remained significant and contributed independently; the HbA1c was 0.12% lower for every additional intervening appointment that was kept (P= .0001) and 0.34% lower for each quartile of better medication adherence (P= .0009). Conclusion Keeping more appointments and taking diabetes medications as directed were associated with substantial improvements in HbA1c. Efforts to enhance glycemic outcomes should include emphasis on these simple but critically important aspects of patient 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 · 10.1177/0145721705274927

Cites

77 of 77 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 77 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Rhee, M. K., Slocum, W., Ziemer, D. C., Culler, S. D., Cook, C. B., El-Kebbi, I. M., Gallina, D. L., Barnes, C., & Phillips, L. S.
Venue
The Diabetes Educator
Published
2005-03
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
240-250
ISSN
  • 0145-7217 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-6063
OpenAlex
W2171233776
Cited by
339
References
77
FWCI
8.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Patient Adherence Improves Glycemic Control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0145721705274927
The paper
Rhee, M. K., Slocum, W., Ziemer, D. C., Culler, S. D., Cook, C. B., El-Kebbi, I. M., Gallina, D. L., Barnes, C., & Phillips, L. S. (2005). Patient Adherence Improves Glycemic Control. The Diabetes Educator. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721705274927

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.