• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在基层医疗就诊前提示血糖控制不佳的患者确定就诊重点:一项实用的聚类随机试验。

Prompting Patients with Poorly Controlled Diabetes to Identify Visit Priorities Before Primary Care Visits: a Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

机构信息

Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2000 Broadway, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA.

Department of Medicine, Oakland Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jun;34(6):831-838. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4756-4. Epub 2019 Feb 11.

DOI:10.1007/s11606-018-4756-4
PMID:30746642
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6544732/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Most patients with diabetes do not meet all evidence-based goals of care, and many patients report poor communication and lack of involvement in decision-making during primary care visits.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that a "Pre-Visit Prioritization" secure email message could improve visit communication and glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

We conducted a pragmatic, provider-randomized, multi-site clinical trial from March 2015 to October 2016 across 30 primary care practices within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), a large integrated care delivery system.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients had at least 1 year of KPNC membership, type 2 diabetes with most recently measured hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > = 8.0%, and were registered users of the KPNC online patient portal.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in the intervention arm, upon booking an appointment, received a secure email through the KPNC online portal with a link to the EHR allowing them to submit their top one or two priorities prior to the visit. Control patients received usual care.

MAIN MEASURES

Glycemic control; change in HbA1c 6 and 12 months after the initial visit; patient-reported outcomes related to patient-provider communication and patient care experiences.

KEY RESULTS

During the study period, 1276 patients had at least one eligible visit. In post-visit surveys (n = 457), more intervention arm patients reported preparing questions for their visit (72% vs 63%, p = 0.048) and being given treatment choices to consider (81% vs 73%, p = 0.041). Patients in both arms had similar reductions in HbA1c over the 12-month study period (0.56% ± 1.45%), with no significant differences between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

A "light touch" email-based pre-visit intervention resulted in improved measures of visit interaction but did not significantly improve glycemic control relative to usual care. Improving diabetes clinical outcomes through more effective primary care visits may require more intensive approaches to patient visit preparation.

TRIAL REGISTRY

NCT02375932.

摘要

背景

大多数糖尿病患者无法达到所有基于证据的护理目标,许多患者在初级保健就诊时报告沟通不佳且缺乏参与决策的机会。

目的

检验“就诊前优先级排序”安全电子邮件能否改善 2 型糖尿病患者的就诊沟通和血糖控制。

设计

我们在 2015 年 3 月至 2016 年 10 月间,在 Kaiser Permanente Northern California(KPNC)的 30 个初级保健机构开展了一项实用、由医生主导、多地点的临床试验,KPNC 是一个大型综合医疗服务提供系统。

参与者

符合条件的患者至少在 KPNC 登记注册 1 年,患有 2 型糖尿病,且其最近的糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)测量值≥8.0%,并注册了 KPNC 在线患者门户。

干预措施

干预组患者在预约就诊时,通过 KPNC 在线门户收到一封安全电子邮件,其中包含一个链接,可链接到电子病历,以便他们在就诊前提交自己的一到两个优先级事项。对照组患者接受常规护理。

主要观察指标

血糖控制;首次就诊后 6 个月和 12 个月时的 HbA1c 变化;与医患沟通和患者护理体验相关的患者报告结局。

主要结果

在研究期间,有 1276 名患者至少有一次符合条件的就诊。在就诊后调查中(n=457),干预组患者报告自己准备就诊问题的比例(72% vs. 63%,p=0.048)和收到治疗选择方案供其考虑的比例(81% vs. 73%,p=0.041)均更高。两组患者在 12 个月的研究期间内,HbA1c 均有相似程度的下降(0.56%±1.45%),两组间无显著差异。

结论

基于电子邮件的“轻触式”就诊前干预改善了就诊互动的评估指标,但与常规护理相比,对血糖控制无显著改善。通过更有效的初级保健就诊来改善糖尿病临床结局,可能需要采取更积极的患者就诊准备措施。

试验注册

NCT02375932。

相似文献

1
Prompting Patients with Poorly Controlled Diabetes to Identify Visit Priorities Before Primary Care Visits: a Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.在基层医疗就诊前提示血糖控制不佳的患者确定就诊重点:一项实用的聚类随机试验。
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jun;34(6):831-838. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4756-4. Epub 2019 Feb 11.
2
Pre-Visit Prioritization for complex patients with diabetes: Randomized trial design and implementation within an integrated health care system.糖尿病复杂患者就诊前的优先排序:综合医疗保健系统内的随机试验设计与实施
Contemp Clin Trials. 2016 Mar;47:196-201. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2016.01.012. Epub 2016 Jan 26.
3
Primary care visit preparation and communication for patients with poorly controlled diabetes: A qualitative study of patients and physicians.糖尿病控制不佳患者的初级保健就诊准备与沟通:一项针对患者和医生的定性研究
Prim Care Diabetes. 2017 Apr;11(2):148-153. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2016.11.003. Epub 2016 Dec 1.
4
Effectiveness of two interventions based on improving patient-practitioner communication on diabetes self-management in patients with low educational level: study protocol of a clustered randomized trial in primary care.基于改善医患沟通的两种干预措施对低教育水平糖尿病患者自我管理的效果:初级保健中一项基于群组的随机试验研究方案。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Oct 23;13:433. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-433.
5
Use of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring, at 3-month intervals, in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice (GP-OSMOTIC): a pragmatic, open-label, 12-month, randomised controlled trial.在一般实践中(GP-OSMOTIC),每 3 个月使用专业模式的即时血糖监测,对 2 型糖尿病成人进行监测:一项实用、开放标签、12 个月、随机对照试验。
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Jan;8(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30385-7.
6
7
Visit Planning Using a Waiting Room Health IT Tool: The Aligning Patients and Providers Randomized Controlled Trial.使用候诊室健康信息技术工具进行就诊计划安排:使患者和提供者保持一致的随机对照试验。
Ann Fam Med. 2019 Mar;17(2):141-149. doi: 10.1370/afm.2352.
8
Visit Content Analysis: Doctor-Patient Communication in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.就诊内容分析:2 型糖尿病患者的医患沟通。
Perm J. 2021 May;25. doi: 10.7812/TPP/20.208.
9
Effectiveness of Digital Medicines to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes: Prospective, Open-Label, Cluster-Randomized Pilot Clinical Trial.数字药物改善血压控制不佳的高血压患者和2型糖尿病患者临床结局的有效性:前瞻性、开放标签、整群随机试验性临床试验
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jul 11;19(7):e246. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7833.
10
Comparative Effectiveness of a Technology-Facilitated Depression Care Management Model in Safety-Net Primary Care Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: 6-Month Outcomes of a Large Clinical Trial.技术辅助的抑郁症护理管理模式在安全网初级保健2型糖尿病患者中的比较效果:一项大型临床试验的6个月结果
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 23;20(4):e147. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7692.

引用本文的文献

1
Diabetes Deprescribing in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.老年人糖尿病减药:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Intern Med. 2025 Jun 23. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.2015.
2
Health priorities and treatment preferences of adults with epilepsy: A narrative literature review with a systematic search.癫痫成人患者的健康优先事项和治疗偏好:一项系统检索的叙述性文献综述
Epilepsy Behav. 2025 May;166:110359. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2025.110359. Epub 2025 Mar 4.
3
Tools and frameworks for evaluating the implementation of learning health systems: a scoping review.评估学习健康系统实施情况的工具和框架:范围综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Aug 6;22(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01179-7.
4
Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.共享决策对 2 型糖尿病成年患者血糖控制效果的系统评价和 Meta 分析。
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 31;19(7):e0306296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306296. eCollection 2024.
5
Associations between Outpatient Laboratory Test Age and Healthcare Utilization in Type 2 Diabetes Care.2型糖尿病护理中门诊实验室检查年龄与医疗保健利用之间的关联。
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2023 Jul 1;22(2):1319-1326. doi: 10.1007/s40200-023-01250-0. eCollection 2023 Dec.
6
Effect of a Peer Comparison and Educational Intervention on Medical Test Conversation Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.同伴比较和教育干预对医疗测试对话质量的影响:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Nov 1;6(11):e2342464. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.42464.
7
Associations between alcohol brief intervention in primary care and drinking and health outcomes in adults with hypertension and type 2 diabetes: a population-based observational study.基层医疗中的酒精简短干预与高血压和 2 型糖尿病成人的饮酒和健康结果之间的关联:一项基于人群的观察性研究。
BMJ Open. 2023 Jan 19;13(1):e064088. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064088.
8
Patient-Centered Digital Health Records and Their Effects on Health Outcomes: Systematic Review.以患者为中心的数字化健康档案及其对健康结果的影响:系统评价。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Dec 22;24(12):e43086. doi: 10.2196/43086.
9
Establishing priorities for diabetes action goals according to key opinion leaders and health professionals.根据主要意见领袖和卫生专业人员为糖尿病行动目标确定优先顺序。
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2022 Aug 19;11(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s13584-022-00540-x.
10
Patient and supporter factors affecting engagement with diabetes telehealth.影响糖尿病远程医疗参与的患者和支持者因素。
Am J Manag Care. 2021 Oct;27(10):409-414. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2021.88758.

本文引用的文献

1
'The Hand on the Doorknob': Visit Agenda Setting by Complex Patients and Their Primary Care Physicians.《门把手之握:复杂患者及其初级保健医生的就诊议程设置》。
J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 Jan-Feb;31(1):29-37. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.01.170167.
2
Change in Testing, Awareness of Hemoglobin A1c Result, and Glycemic Control in US Adults, 2007-2014.2007 - 2014年美国成年人糖化血红蛋白检测、对糖化血红蛋白结果的知晓情况及血糖控制的变化
JAMA. 2017 Nov 14;318(18):1825-1827. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11927.
3
Population Health Management for Diabetes: Health Care System-Level Approaches for Improving Quality and Addressing Disparities.糖尿病的人群健康管理:改善质量和解决差异的医疗系统层面方法。
Curr Diab Rep. 2017 May;17(5):31. doi: 10.1007/s11892-017-0858-3.
4
Pre-Visit Prioritization for complex patients with diabetes: Randomized trial design and implementation within an integrated health care system.糖尿病复杂患者就诊前的优先排序:综合医疗保健系统内的随机试验设计与实施
Contemp Clin Trials. 2016 Mar;47:196-201. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2016.01.012. Epub 2016 Jan 26.
5
Trends in the evidence level for the American Diabetes Association's "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" from 2005 to 2014.2005年至2014年美国糖尿病协会《糖尿病医疗护理标准》的证据水平趋势。
Diabetes Care. 2015 Jan;38(1):6-8. doi: 10.2337/dc14-2142.
6
Establishing visit priorities for complex patients: A summary of the literature and conceptual model to guide innovative interventions.确定复杂患者的就诊优先级:文献综述与指导创新干预措施的概念模型
Healthc (Amst). 2013 Dec;1(3-4):117-122. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2013.07.008.
7
Does improving patient-practitioner communication improve clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular diseases? A systematic review of the evidence.改善医患沟通能否改善心血管疾病患者的临床结局?证据的系统评价。
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Jul;96(1):3-12. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.04.006. Epub 2014 Apr 21.
8
Achievement of goals in U.S. diabetes care, 1999-2010.美国糖尿病护理目标的实现,1999-2010 年。
N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 25;368(17):1613-24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1213829.
9
Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations.为医疗服务提供者提供的干预措施,以促进临床会诊中以患者为中心的方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12(12):CD003267. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003267.pub2.
10
Communicating with physicians about medical decisions: a reluctance to disagree.与医生就医疗决策进行沟通:不愿提出不同意见。
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Aug 13;172(15):1184-6. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2360.