Cited by 39Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and EducationPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Family Physician Clinical Inertia in Glycemic Control among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Kranjčević, Ksenija·2015·Medical Science Monitor

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many patients with diabetes do not achieve target values. One of the reasons for this is clinical inertia. The correct explanation of clinical inertia requires a conjunction of patient with physician and health care system factors. Our aim was to determine the rate of clinical inertia in treating diabetes in primary care and association of patient, physician, and health care setting factors with clinical inertia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a national, multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study in primary care in Croatia. Each family physician (FP) provided professional data and collected clinical data on 15-25 type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. Clinical inertia was defined as a consultation in which treatment change based on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels was indicated but did not occur. RESULTS: A total of 449 FPs (response rate 89.8%) collected data on 10275 patients. Mean clinical inertia per FP was 55.6% (SD ±26.17) of consultations. All of the FPs were clinically inert with some patients, and 9% of the FPs were clinically inert with all patients. The main factors associated with clinical inertia were: higher percentage of HbA1c, oral anti-diabetic drug initiated by diabetologist, increased postprandial glycemia and total cholesterol, physical inactivity of patient, and administration of drugs other than oral antidiabetics. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical inertia in treating patients with T2DM is a serious problem. Patients with worse glycemic control and those whose therapy was initiated by a diabetologist experience more clinical inertia. More research on causes of clinical inertia in treating patients with T2DM should be conducted to help achieve more effective diabetes control.

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 · 10.12659/msm.892248

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • The review found two conflicting results: Lang et al. reported that patients with worse glycemic control and those whose therapy was initiated by a diabetologist experienced more clinical inertia, whereas Ziemer et al. reported less clinical inertia at the diabetes clinic (35%) versus the medical clinic (67%).

    “The review also came across two conflicting results, where Lang et al. reported that the patients with worse glycemic control and those whose therapy was initiated by a diabetologist experienced more clinical inertia [21], which contrasted with what Ziemer et al. reported, which was less clinical inertia at the diabetes clinic (35%) versus the medical clinic (67%) [43].”

    From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Croatia, patients whose therapy was initiated by a diabetologist experienced worse glycemic control than patients managed by other family physicians.

    “Surprisingly, in Croatia, Lang et al. [21] reported that patients whose therapy was initiated by a diabetologist experienced a worse glycemic control and higher clinical inertia than patients who were managed by other family physicians.”

    From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Results (Clinical inertia; page unavailable) report that patients whose oral antidiabetic therapy was initiated by a diabetologist had a higher risk of clinical inertia. They separately report that patients with worse glycemic control were more likely to experience clinical inertia, but do not establish that the diabetologist-initiated group had worse glycemic control than patients whose therapy was initiated by family physicians. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The criteria for clinical inertia included poor glycemic control indicated by mean HbA1c above target, failure to initiate or intensify treatment timely when indicated by HbA1c, lack of individualization of treatment goals, failure to initiate or intensify according to evidence-based guidelines, and failure to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated.

    “The criteria for clinical inertia included poor glycemic control as indicated by mean HbA1c levels above the recommended target levels [20], failure to initiate or intensify treatment in a timely manner as indicated by a consultation in which treatment change based on HbA1c levels is indicated but does not occur [21], lack of individualization of treatment goals for some patients [22], failure to”
  • In Croatia, patients whose therapy was initiated by a diabetologist experienced higher clinical inertia than patients managed by other family physicians.

    “Surprisingly, in Croatia, Lang et al. [21] reported that patients whose therapy was initiated by a diabetologist experienced a worse glycemic control and higher clinical inertia than patients who were managed by other family physicians.”

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: 2

  1. [17]Croatian National Institute of Public Health Croatian Health Service Yearbook 2011 [cited 2014 Jul 14]. Web edition. Available from: URL: http://hzjz.hr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Ljetopis_2011.pdf
  2. [22]Croatian National Institute of Public Health Croatian Health Service Yearbook 2007 [cited 2014 Jul 22]. Web edition. Available from URL: http://hzjz.hr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Ljetopis_2007.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kranjčević, K.
Affiliations
General Practice Office, Zagreb-Zapad Health Care Center, Zagreb, Croatia
Corresponding author
Kranjčević, Ksenija
Venue
Medical Science Monitor
Published
2015
Volume
21
Pages
403-411
ISSN
  • 1234-1010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1643-3750
OpenAlex
W2045757121
Cited by
39
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Medical Science Monitor (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
clinical inertia, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, general practitioners, primary care, oral antidiabetic drugs, postprandial blood glucose, physical inactivity, total cholesterol
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Family, Surveys and Questionnaires, Logistic Models, Croatia

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