Primary care diabetes · 2022
Patient outcomes of a clinician curriculum on how to deliver a diabetes diagnosis.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ledford Christy J W, Cafferty Lauren A, Fulleborn Stephanie, Carriere Rishawn, Ledford Christopher C, Seehusen Angela B, Rogers Tyler S, Jackson Jeremy T, Womack Jasmyne, Crawford Paul F, Rider Heather A, Seehusen Dean A
Аннотация
AIMS: To investigate the effects of a curriculum that teaches medical decision making and interpersonal communication in the context of prediabetes (preDM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM).
METHODS: This evaluation was an active-controlled trial of 56 patients, including patients who received their diagnosis from intervention-trained clinicians or a control group. Patients attended a research appointment for informed consent and collection of baseline measures. Over the following six months, both groups were mailed surveys and informational handouts monthly. Upon conclusion, we recorded the most recent A1c from the patient's record.
RESULTS: An analysis of covariance test revealed patients who received a T2DM diagnosis from an intervention-trained clinician reported higher reassurance from the diagnosing clinician and had a higher perception of threat. Although not statistically significant, patients with T2DM in the intervention group had a lower A1c at follow up and patients in the intervention group reported less poor eating and a higher degree of diet decision making.
CONCLUSIONS: The curriculum itself does not influence glycemic control, but our results demonstrate the positive impact on patients of the curriculum to teach critical skills to clinicians delivering a diabetes diagnosis.
METHODS: This evaluation was an active-controlled trial of 56 patients, including patients who received their diagnosis from intervention-trained clinicians or a control group. Patients attended a research appointment for informed consent and collection of baseline measures. Over the following six months, both groups were mailed surveys and informational handouts monthly. Upon conclusion, we recorded the most recent A1c from the patient's record.
RESULTS: An analysis of covariance test revealed patients who received a T2DM diagnosis from an intervention-trained clinician reported higher reassurance from the diagnosing clinician and had a higher perception of threat. Although not statistically significant, patients with T2DM in the intervention group had a lower A1c at follow up and patients in the intervention group reported less poor eating and a higher degree of diet decision making.
CONCLUSIONS: The curriculum itself does not influence glycemic control, but our results demonstrate the positive impact on patients of the curriculum to teach critical skills to clinicians delivering a diabetes diagnosis.