↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
438 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
433 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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 433 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 433 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 431 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 1 <1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 <1%
Unknown 431 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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
#3,756,814
of 19,645,988 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,280
of 11,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,450
of 242,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,645,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 242,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.