Cited by 38Nursing Roles and PracticesDiabetes Management and EducationChronic Disease Management Strategies

The TrueBlue study: Is practice nurse-led collaborative care effective in the management of depression for patients with heart disease or diabetes?

Open access
Morgan, Mark, Dunbar, James, Reddy, Prasuna, Coates, Michael, Leahy, Robert·2009·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

Background: In the presence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) or coronary heart disease (CHD), depression is under diagnosed and under treated despite being associated with worse clinical outcomes. Our earlier pilot study demonstrated that it was feasible, acceptable and affordable for practice nurses to extend their role to include screening for and monitoring of depression alongside biological and lifestyle risk factors. The current study will compare the clinical outcomes of our model of practice nurse-led collaborative care with usual care for patients with depression and T2DM or CHD. Methods: This is a cluster-randomised intervention trial. Eighteen general practices from regional and metropolitan areas agreed to join this study, and were allocated randomly to an intervention or control group. We aim to recruit 50 patients with co-morbid depression and diabetes or heart disease from each of these practices. In the intervention group, practice nurses (PNs) will be trained for their enhanced roles in this nurse-led collaborative care study. Patients will be invited to attend a practice nurse consultation every 3 months prior to seeing their usual general practitioner. The PN will assess psychological, physiological and lifestyle parameters then work with the patient to set management goals. The outcome of this assessment will form the basis of a GP Management Plan document. In the control group, the patients will continue to receive their usual care for the first six months of the study before the PNs undergo the training and switch to the intervention protocol. The primary clinical outcome will be a reduction in the depression score. The study will also measure the impact on physiological measures, quality of life and on patient attitude to health care delivered by practice nurses. Conclusion: The strength of this programme is that it provides a sustainable model of chronic disease management with monitoring and self-management assistance for physiological, lifestyle and psychological risk factors for high-risk patients with co-morbid depression, diabetes or heart disease. The study will demonstrate whether nurse-led collaborative care achieves better outcomes than usual care.

Verifying this paper

8 of 9 steps done · this page updates itself — you can leave and come back

  1. Registry recordVerified
  2. Full textRead the full text
  3. Reference list20 references found
  4. Reference checkChecking each cited work — 19 of 19
  5. StatisticsNeeds the full text
  6. ClaimsNeeds the full text
  7. Cited sourcesNeeds claims to check
  8. Self-checkNeeds the full text
  9. VerificationFindings verified

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 · 10.1186/1471-2296-10-46

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • Forty-four RCTs examined the impact of interventions on disease-specific outcomes.

    “Forty four RCTs examined the impact of interventions on disease specific outcomes”

    From Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice (2019) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Methods/design section describes one planned cluster-randomised trial, not a review of 44 RCTs. Searches for “forty four RCTs” and “44 randomised controlled trials” found no passage in our copy reporting that count or examining disease-specific outcomes across those trials. No page numbers were available for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Seventeen studies targeting diabetes reported mean changes in HbA1c, with seven reporting significant improvements in the intervention compared with usual care.

    “Seventeen studies targeting diabetes reported mean changes in HbA1c, with seven reporting significant improvements in the intervention compared to usual care”

    From Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice (2019) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Abstract (Methods) describes a planned trial in 18 practices, and Methods/design (Survey forms) says HbA1c will be recorded for patients with diabetes. Neither section reports findings across 17 studies or seven significant improvements over usual care. Searches for the study counts, significant improvements, and HbA1c found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 [47]

    The Methods/design > Survey forms section says the TrueBlue study planned to measure physical and mental health using the SF-36. Neither that section nor the passages retrieved by searching for “25 RCTs” and functioning report how many RCTs measured physical, mental, or social functioning. (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

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morgan, M., Dunbar, J., Reddy, P., Coates, M., & Leahy, R.
Corresponding author
Coates, Michael
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2009-06-23
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
46-46
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130677724
Cited by
38
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
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 › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
depression, practice nurses, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, chronic disease management, depression screening, comorbidities, quality of life, lifestyle risk factors, self-management
MeSH terms
Workforce, Australia, Cooperative Behavior, Coronary Disease, Depressive Disorder, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Mental Health Services, Nurse Practitioners, Patient Care Team, Surveys and Questionnaires

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