↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of standardized nursing care plans to achieve A1C, blood pressure, and LDL-C goals among people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus at baseline: four-year follow-up study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
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
Effectiveness of standardized nursing care plans to achieve A1C, blood pressure, and LDL-C goals among people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus at baseline: four-year follow-up study
Published in
BMC Family Practice, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0800-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Cárdenas-Valladolid, A. López-de Andrés, R. Jiménez-García, M. J. de Dios-Duarte, P. Gómez-Campelo, C. de Burgos-Lunar, F. J. San Andrés-Rebollo, J. C. Abánades-Herranz, M. A. Salinero-Fort

Abstract

No studies that have measured the role of nursing care plans in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus. Our objectives were firstly, to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing Standardized languages in Nursing Care Plans (SNCP) for improving A1C, blood pressure and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (ABC goals) in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus at baseline (A1C ≥7%, blood pressure ≥ 130/80 mmHg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol≥100 mg/dl) compared with Usual Nursing Care (UNC). Secondly, to evaluate the factors associated with these goals. A four-year prospective follow-up study among outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: We analyzed outpatients of 31 primary health centers (Madrid, Spain), with at least two A1C values (at baseline and at the end of the study) who did not meet their ABC goals at baseline. A total of 1916 had A1C ≥7% (881 UNC versus 1035 SNCP). Two thousand four hundred seventy-one had systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg (1204 UNC versus 1267 SNCP). One thousand one hundred seventy had diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mmHg (618 UNC versus 552 SNCP); and 2473 had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dl (1257 UNC versus 1216 SNCP). Data were collected from computerized clinical records; SNCP were identified using NANDA and NIC taxonomies. More patients cared for using SNCP achieved in blood pressure goals compared with patients who received UNC (systolic blood pressure: 29.4% versus 28.7%, p = 0.699; diastolic blood pressure: 58.3% versus 53.2%, p = 0.08), but the differences did not reach statistical significance. For A1C and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals, there were no significant differences between the groups. Coronary artery disease was a significant predictor of blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. In patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus, there is not enough evidence to support the use of SNCP instead of with UNC with the aim of helping patients to achieve their ABC goals. However, the use of SNCP is associated with a clear trend of a achievement of diastolic blood pressure goals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 35%
Researcher 4 20%
Librarian 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 25%

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 04 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,134,684
of 13,801,769 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#408
of 1,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,253
of 271,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,801,769 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,383 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 271,713 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them