Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated With an Intervention to Enhance Quality of Care for Rural Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine patient-reported outcomes in a controlled trial of a multifaceted provider-level intervention to improve quality of care for rural patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a before/after intervention study with concurrent controls in two rural regions in Alberta, Canada. The intervention consisted of six monthly visits by a multidisciplinary health care team and was primarily directed at primary care providers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were assessed after 6 months. Patient-reported outcomes included changes in health-related quality of life (Health Utilities Index Mark 3 [HUI3]), satisfaction with care, lifestyle (Diabetes Lifestyle Form), and adherence to self-care activities. Analysis of covariance was used to assess differences over time between the control and intervention regions. RESULTS: A total of 200 intervention and 172 control subjects were included in this analysis. After adjusting for important clinical and demographic differences, a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in the overall HUI3 score was seen at the 6-month follow-up in the intervention region (0.06 [95% CI 0.02-0.10]) compared with the control region (0.01 [-0.04 to 0.04]) (P = 0.03 for the difference between groups). Satisfaction with general medical care (P < 0.001 between groups) and diabetes care (P < 0.001 between groups) increased among patients in the intervention region compared with the control region. Self-efficacy, attitudes, and beliefs about diabetes control all increased in the intervention region when compared with the control region, but adherence to self-care activities did not. CONCLUSIONS: A provider-level intervention directed at improving quality of clinical care for patients with type 2 diabetes also had a favorable impact on overall health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, and other humanistic outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".