Attainment of Canadian Diabetes Association recommended targets in patients with type 2 diabetes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE To examine the degree to which targets for diabetes (blood pressure [BP], glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]) are achieved in family practices and how these results compare with family physicians’ perceptions of how well targets are being achieved. DESIGN Chart audit and physician survey. SETTING Newfoundland and Labrador. PARTICIPANTS Patients with type 2 diabetes and their family physicians. INTERVENTIONS The charts of 20 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly chosen from each of 8 family physician practices in St John’s, Nfld, and data were abstracted. All family physicians in the province were surveyed using a modified Dillman method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The most recent HbA1c, LDL-C, and BP measurements listed in each audited chart; surveyed family physicians’ knowledge of the recommended targets for HbA1c, LDL-C, and BP and their estimates of what percentage of their patients were at those recommended targets. RESULTS The chart audit revealed that 20.6% of patients were at the recommended target for BP, 48.1% were at the recommended target for HbA1c, and 17.5% were at the recommended target for LDL-C. When targets were examined collectively, only 2.5% of patients were achieving targets in all 3 areas. The survey found that most family physicians were aware of the recommended targets for BP, LDL-C, and HbA1c. However, their estimates of the percentages of patients in their practices achieving these targets appeared high (59.3% for BP, 58.2% for HbA1c, and 48.4% for LDL-C) compared with the results of the chart audit. CONCLUSION The findings of the chart audit are consistent with other published reports, which have illustrated that a large majority of patients with diabetes fall short of reaching recommended targets for BP, blood glucose, and lipid levels. Although family physicians are knowledgeable about recommended targets, there is a gap between knowledge and clinical outcomes. The reasons for this are likely multifactorial. Further investigation is needed to better understand this phenomenon as well as to understand the foundation for physicians’ optimistic estimates of how many of their patients with diabates were reaching target values.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».