S Seidu1, N S Walker2, D H Bodicoat3, M J Davies3, K Khunti3. 1. Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4WP, UK; Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4WP, UK. Electronic address: sis11@le.ac.uk. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP, UK. 3. Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4WP, UK; Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4WP, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the interventions targeting primary care or community based professionals on glycaemic and cardiovascular risk factor control in people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions targeting primary care or community based professionals on diabetes and cardiovascular risk factor control. We conducted searches in MEDLINE database from inception up to 27th September 2015. We also retrieved articles related to diabetes from the Cochrane EPOC database and EMBASE and scanned bibliographies for key articles. RESULTS: There was heterogeneity in terms of interventions and participants amongst the 30 studies (39,439 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the studies focused on general or family practitioners, five on pharmacists, three on nurses and one each on dieticians and community workers. Twelve studies targeted multi-disciplinary teams. Educational interventions did not seem to have a positive impact on HbA1c, systolic blood pressure or lipid profiles. The use of telemedicine, clinician reminders and feedback showed mixed results but there was a level of consistency in improvement in HbA1c when multifaceted interventions on multidisciplinary teams were implemented. Targeting general or family physicians was largely ineffective in improving the cardiovascular risk factors considered, except when using a computer application on insulin handling of type 2 diabetes or customised simulated cases with feedbacks. Similarly, interventions targeting nurses did not improve outcomes compared to standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted professional interventions were more effective than single interventions targeting single primary or community care professionals in improving glycaemic control.
OBJECTIVE: To review the interventions targeting primary care or community based professionals on glycaemic and cardiovascular risk factor control in people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions targeting primary care or community based professionals on diabetes and cardiovascular risk factor control. We conducted searches in MEDLINE database from inception up to 27th September 2015. We also retrieved articles related to diabetes from the Cochrane EPOC database and EMBASE and scanned bibliographies for key articles. RESULTS: There was heterogeneity in terms of interventions and participants amongst the 30 studies (39,439 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the studies focused on general or family practitioners, five on pharmacists, three on nurses and one each on dieticians and community workers. Twelve studies targeted multi-disciplinary teams. Educational interventions did not seem to have a positive impact on HbA1c, systolic blood pressure or lipid profiles. The use of telemedicine, clinician reminders and feedback showed mixed results but there was a level of consistency in improvement in HbA1c when multifaceted interventions on multidisciplinary teams were implemented. Targeting general or family physicians was largely ineffective in improving the cardiovascular risk factors considered, except when using a computer application on insulin handling of type 2 diabetes or customised simulated cases with feedbacks. Similarly, interventions targeting nurses did not improve outcomes compared to standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted professional interventions were more effective than single interventions targeting single primary or community care professionals in improving glycaemic control.
Authors: Lisa K Sharp; Jessica J Tilton; Daniel R Touchette; Yinglin Xia; Daniel Mihailescu; Michael L Berbaum; Ben S Gerber Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Anja Wollny; Christin Löffler; Eva Drewelow; Attila Altiner; Christian Helbig; Anne Daubmann; Karl Wegscheider; Susanne Löscher; Michael Pentzek; Stefan Wilm; Gregor Feldmeier; Sara Santos Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Margaret McGill; Lawrence Blonde; Juliana C N Chan; Kamlesh Khunti; Fernando J Lavalle; Clifford J Bailey Journal: J Clin Transl Endocrinol Date: 2016-12-09
Authors: Mark E Murphy; Molly Byrne; Atieh Zarabzadeh; Derek Corrigan; Tom Fahey; Susan M Smith Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-09-16 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Anja Wollny; Attila Altiner; Anne Daubmann; Eva Drewelow; Christian Helbig; Susanne Löscher; Michael Pentzek; Sara Santos; Karl Wegscheider; Stefan Wilm; Christin Löffler Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Patrick Timpel; Caroline Lang; Johan Wens; Juan Carlos Contel; Peter E H Schwarz Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Berta Ibáñez; Arkaitz Galbete; María José Goñi; Luis Forga; Laura Arnedo; Felipe Aizpuru; Julián Librero; Oscar Lecea; Koldo Cambra Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Peter E H Schwarz; Patrick Timpel; Lorenz Harst; Colin J Greaves; Mohammed K Ali; Jeffrey Lambert; Mary Beth Weber; Mohamad M Almedawar; Henning Morawietz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 24.094