4.6 Review

Team-Based Care to Improve Diabetes Management: A Community Guide Meta-analysis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages E17-E26

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.02.005

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
  2. Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases) [P30 DK092949]
  3. Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research [P30DK111024]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: Team-based care has been increasingly used to deliver care for patients with chronic conditions, but its effectiveness for managing diabetes has not been systematically assessed. Evidence acquisition: RCTs were identified from two sources: a high-quality, broader review comparing 11 quality improvement strategies for diabetes management (database inception to July 2010), and an updated search using the same search strategy (July 2010 - October 2015). Evidence synthesis: Thirty-five studies were included in the current review; a majority focused on patients with Type 2 diabetes. Teams included patients, their primary care providers, and one or two additional healthcare professionals (most often nurses or pharmacists). Random effect meta-analysis showed that, compared with controls, team-based care was associated with greater reductions in blood glucose levels (-0.5% in HbA 1 c, 95% CI= 0.7, - 0.3) and greater improvements in blood pressure and lipid levels. Interventions also increased the proportion of patients who reached target blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, based on American Diabetes Association guidelines available at the time. Data analysis was completed in 2016. Conclusions: For patients with Type 2 diabetes, team-based care improves blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available