Cited by 102Diabetes Management and EducationChronic Disease Management StrategiesDiabetes Treatment and Management

Disease Management Programs for Type 2 Diabetes in Germany

Open access
Fuchs, Sabine, Henschke, Cornelia, Blümel, Miriam, Busse, Reinhard·2014·Deutsches Ärzteblatt international

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Disease management programs (DMPs) are intended to improve the care of persons with chronic diseases. Despite numerous studies there is no unequivocal evidence about the effectiveness of DMPs in Germany. METHOD: We conducted a systematic literature review in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CCMed databases. Our analysis included all controlled studies in which patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in a DMP were compared to type 2 diabetes patients receiving routine care with respect to process, outcome, and economic parameters. RESULTS: The 9 studies included in the analysis were highly divergent with respect to their characteristics and the process and outcome parameters studied in each. No study had data beyond the year 2008. In 3 publications, the DMP patients had a lower mortality than the control patients (2.3%, 11.3%, and 7.17% versus 4.7%, 14.4%, and 14.72%). In 2 publications, DMP participation was found to be associated with a mean survival time of 1044.94 (± 189.87) days, as against 985.02 (± 264.68) in the control group. No consistent effect was seen with respect to morbidity, quality of life, or economic parameters. 7 publications from 5 studies revealed positive effects on process parameters for DMP participants. CONCLUSION: The observed beneficial trends with respect to mortality and survival time, as well as improvements in process parameters, indicate that DMPs can, in fact, improve the care of patients with diabetes. Further evaluation is needed, because some changes in outcome parameters (an important indicator of the quality of care) may only be observable over a longer period of time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0453

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fuchs, S., Henschke, C., Blümel, M., & Busse, R.
Affiliations
Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Fuchs, Sabine
Venue
Deutsches Ärzteblatt international
Published
2014-06-27
Volume
111
Issue
26
Pages
453-63
ISSN
1866-0452 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2327041381
Cited by
102
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
Locations
  • Deutsches Ärzteblatt international (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
disease management programs, type 2 diabetes, diabetes management, mortality, survival time, quality of care, process parameters, economic outcomes, quality of life, morbidity
MeSH terms
Aged, Chronic Disease, Clinical Trials as Topic, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Germany, Humans, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Program Evaluation, Prevalence, Survival Rate, Treatment Outcome, Disease Management

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