↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
380 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
307 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001481
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carry Mira Renders, Gerlof D Valk, Simon J Griffin, Edward Wagner, Jacques ThM van Eijk, Willem JJ Assendelft

Abstract

Diabetes is a common chronic disease that is increasingly managed in primary care. Different systems have been proposed to manage diabetes care. To assess the effects of different interventions, targeted at health professionals or the structure in which they deliver care, on the management of patients with diabetes in primary care, outpatient and community settings. We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 4 1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), Cinahl (1982-1999), and reference lists of articles. Randomised trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) analyses of professional, financial and organisational strategies aimed at improving care for people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. The participants were health care professionals, including physicians, nurses and pharmacists. The outcomes included objectively measured health professional performance or patient outcomes, and self-report measures with known validity and reliability. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Forty-one studies were included involving more than 200 practices and 48,000 patients. Twenty-seven studies were RCTs, 12 were CBAs, and two were ITS. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of interventions, participants, settings and outcomes. The methodological quality of the studies was often poor. In all studies the intervention strategy was multifaceted. In 12 studies the interventions were targeted at health professionals, in nine they were targeted at the organisation of care, and 20 studies targeted both. In 15 studies patient education was added to the professional and organisational interventions. A combination of professional interventions improved process outcomes. The effect on patient outcomes remained less clear as these were rarely assessed. Arrangements for follow-up (organisational intervention) also showed a favourable effect on process outcomes. Multiple interventions in which patient education was added or in which the role of the nurse was enhanced also reported favourable effects on patients' health outcomes. Multifaceted professional interventions can enhance the performance of health professionals in managing patients with diabetes. Organisational interventions that improve regular prompted recall and review of patients (central computerised tracking systems or nurses who regularly contact the patient) can also improve diabetes management. The addition of patient-oriented interventions can lead to improved patient health outcomes. Nurses can play an important role in patient-oriented interventions, through patient education or facilitating adherence to treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 307 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 305 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 1 <1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 <1%
Unknown 305 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,323,499
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,485
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,469
of 232,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#159
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 232,844 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.