| Title |
Nurse-led psychological intervention for type 2 diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial (Diabetes-6 study) in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp18x696185 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Khalida Ismail, Kirsty Winkley, Nicole de Zoysa, Anita Patel, Margaret Heslin, Helen Graves, Stephen Thomas, Dominic Stringer, Daniel Stahl, Stephanie A Amiel |
| Abstract |
Suboptimal glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and associated with psychological barriers. To investigate whether it was possible to train practice nurses in six psychological skills (Diabetes-6 [D6]) based on motivational interviewing (MI) and basic cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), and whether integrating these with diabetes care was associated with improved glycaemic control over 18 months compared with standard care. Two-arm, single-blind, parallel cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. Adult participants (n = 334) with T2D and persistent HbA1c ≥69.4 mmol/mol were randomised to receive 12 sessions of either the D6 intervention or standard care over 12 months. Practice nurses were trained in the six psychological skills and their competencies were measured by standardised rating scales. Primary outcome was a change in HbA1c level at 18 months from randomisation. Secondary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, depressive symptoms, harmful alcohol intake, diabetes-specific distress, and cost-effectiveness. Using intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference between D6 intervention and standard care in HbA1c (mean difference -0.79 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.75 to 4.18) or for any of the secondary outcomes. The competency level of D6 nurses was below the beginner proficiency level and similar to the standard-care nurses. Training nurses in MI and basic CBT to support self-management did not lead to improvements in glycaemic control or other secondary outcomes in people with T2D at 18 months. It was also unlikely to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the increased contact with standard-care nurses did not improve glycaemic control. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 50% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 308 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 308 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 45 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 7% |
| Researcher | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 14% |
| Unknown | 112 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 53 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 44 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 14% |
| Psychology | 13 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 8% |
| Unknown | 121 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,950,658
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#2,006
of 4,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,404
of 327,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#53
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.