Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 329

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of Automated Calls With Nurse Follow-Up on Diabetes Treatment Outcomes in a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System: A randomized controlled trial

Piette, J. D., Weinberger, M., Kraemer, F. B., McPhee, S. J.·2001·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated automated telephone disease management (ATDM) with telephone nurse follow-up as a strategy for improving diabetes treatment processes and outcomes in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinics. We also compared the results with those of a prior ATDM trial conducted in a county health care system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 272 VA patients with diabetes using hypoglycemic medications were randomized. During the 1-year study period, intervention patients received biweekly ATDM health assessment and self-care education calls, and a nurse educator followed up with patients based on their ATDM assessment reports. Telephone surveys were used to measure patients' self-care, symptoms, and satisfaction with care. Outpatient service use was evaluated using electronic databases and self-reports, and glycemic control was measured by HbA1c and serum glucose testing. RESULTS: At 12 months, intervention patients reported more frequent glucose self-monitoring and foot inspections than patients receiving usual care and were more likely to be seen in podiatry and diabetes specialty clinics. Intervention patients also were more likely than control patients to have had a cholesterol test. Among patients with baseline HbA1c levels > or =8%, mean end-point values were lower among intervention patients than control patients (8.7 vs. 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.04). Among intervention and control patients with baseline values > or =9%, mean end-point values were 9.1 and 10.2%, respectively (P = 0.04). At follow-up, intervention patients reported fewer symptoms of poor glycemic control than control patients and greater satisfaction with their health care. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention improved the quality of VA diabetes care. Intervention effects for most end points replicated findings from the prior county clinic trial, although intervention-control differences in the current study were smaller because of the relatively good self-care and health status among the current study's enrollees.

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 · 10.2337/diacare.24.2.202

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Hiss, 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine, 124, 146, 10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_Part_2-199601011-00012 · DOI
  2. Smith, 1994, The Journal of family practice, 38, 25
  3. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Resea, 1993, New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 977, 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Weinberger, 1995, Journal of general internal medicine : official journal of the Society for Research and Education in Primary Care Internal Medicine, 10, 59, 10.1007/BF02600227 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 1998, Annals of Internal Medicine, 29, 605
  6. Piette, 2000, The American journal of managed care, 6, 817
  7. Kobak, 1997, Psychiatric Services, 48, 1048, 10.1176/ps.48.8.1048 · DOI
  8. Kobak, 1996, Psychopharmacologia, 127, 291, 10.1007/s002130050089 · DOI
  9. Piette, 2000, The American journal of medicine, 108, 20, 10.1016/S0002-9343(99)00298-3 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Piette, 2000, Medical care, 38, 218, 10.1097/00005650-200002000-00011 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Holloway, 1990, Health services research, 25, 213
  12. Piette, 1999, Medical care, 37, 538, 10.1097/00005650-199906000-00003 · doi:10.1097/00005650-199906000-00003
  13. Allen, 1994, Health Affairs, 13, 25, 10.1377/hlthaff.13.4.25 · DOI
  14. Hayward, 1997, JAMA, 278, 1663, 10.1001/jama.1997.03550200039029 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Gilmer, 1997, Diabetes Care, 20, 1847, 10.2337/diacare.20.12.1847 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Friedman, 1996, American Journal of Hypertension, 9, 285, 10.1016/0895-7061(95)00353-3 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 2000, Diabetes Spectrum, 13, 110
  18. Marrero, 1989, Diabetes Care, 12, 345, 10.2337/diacare.12.5.345 · DOI
  19. Meneghini, 1998, Diabetes Care, 21, 591, 10.2337/diacare.21.4.591 · DOI

Cited by

See all 329

Metadata

Authors
Piette, J. D., Weinberger, M., Kraemer, F. B., & McPhee, S. J.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2001-02-01
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
202-208
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2171946097
Cited by
329
References
3
FWCI
6.01
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: Impact of Automated Calls With Nurse Follow-Up on Diabetes Treatment Outcomes in a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System: A randomized controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.24.2.202
The paper
Piette, J. D., Weinberger, M., Kraemer, F. B., & McPhee, S. J. (2001). Impact of Automated Calls With Nurse Follow-Up on Diabetes Treatment Outcomes in a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.24.2.202

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.