Cited by 24Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and Research

Efficacy of the Telemedicine for Reach, Education, Access, and Treatment (TREAT) model for diabetes care

Toledo, Frederico G.S., Ruppert, Kristine, Huber, Kimberly A., Siminerio, Linda M.·2014·Diabetes Care

Abstract

Videoconferencing-based telemedicine services have the potential to address the problem of poor access to diabetes specialists in remote rural communities. However, evidence of efficacy of telemedicine services on HbA1c in the rural setting has been quite limited. We created the Telemedicine for Reach, Education, Access, and Treatment (TREAT) model—a system that combines videoconferencing consultations provided by an endocrinologist at an urban center in collaboration with a local diabetes educator. In this study, we tested the efficacy of TREAT on HbA1c control. Protocols were approved by the local institutional review board. Volunteers with type 2 diabetes with HbA1c >7.0% and residing within a medically underserved rural Pennsylvania community were recruited. Referral, recruitment, and telemedicine consultations between urban and rural sites were conducted as in one of our previous studies (1). Seventy-one patients were referred, of which 40 expressed an interest in participating. Thirty-one patients consented and enrolled; two withdrew and four were lost to follow-up between the first and second follow-up assessment. At each telemedicine visit at the rural site, participants were assisted by the local diabetes nurse educator. Each participant underwent a telemedicine visit with an urban center–based endocrinologist at baseline and 3 months later for adjustments in therapy. HbA1c was measured at baseline, 3 months (first follow-up), and 6 months (second follow-up). Before enrollment, TREAT participants were not consistently self-monitoring …

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc13-1909

Cites

9 of 9 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
Toledo, F. G. S., Ruppert, K., Huber, K. A., & Siminerio, L. M.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Toledo, Frederico G.S.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2014-07-12
Volume
37
Issue
8
Pages
e179-e180
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2159610858
Cited by
24
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
telemedicine, videoconferencing, type 2 diabetes, HbA1c control, rural healthcare access, medically underserved populations, diabetes nurse educators, self-monitoring of blood glucose
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, Videoconferencing, Young Adult

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