• 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

以患者为中心的沟通和共同决策,以降低血糖控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病患者的 HbA1c 水平 - DEBATE 试验的集群随机对照结果。

Patient-centered communication and shared decision making to reduce HbA1c levels of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus - results of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial.

机构信息

Institute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.

Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

出版信息

BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Jun 25;20(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0977-9.

DOI:10.1186/s12875-019-0977-9
PMID:31238871
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6593484/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Does an intervention designed to foster patient-centered communication and shared decision making among GPs and their patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus reduce the level of HbA1c.

METHODS

The DEBATE trial is a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted in German primary care and including patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus having an HbA1c level of 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) or above at the time of recruitment. Data was measured before intervention (baseline, T0), 6-8 months (T1), 12-14 months (T2), 18-20 months (T3), and 24-26 months (T4) after baseline. Main outcome measure is the level of HbA1c.

RESULTS

In both, the intervention and the control group the decline of the HbA1c level from T0 to T4 was statistically significant (- 0.67% (95% CI: - 0.80,-0.54%; p < 0.0001) and - 0.64% (95% CI: - 0.78, - 0.51%; p < 0.0001), respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the DEBATE trial was not able to confirm effectiveness of the intervention tested compared to care as usual, the results suggest that patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes are able to improve their blood glucose levels. This finding may encourage physicians to stay on task to regularly approach this cohort of patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at ISRCTN registry under the reference ISRCTN70713571 .

摘要

背景

一项旨在促进全科医生与控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病患者之间以患者为中心的沟通和共同决策的干预措施,是否能降低糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平。

方法

DEBATE 试验是一项在德国初级保健中进行的群组随机对照试验,纳入了招募时 HbA1c 水平为 8.0%(64mmol/mol)或以上的 2 型糖尿病患者。数据在干预前(基线,T0)、6-8 个月(T1)、12-14 个月(T2)、18-20 个月(T3)和 24-26 个月(T4)后进行测量。主要观察指标为 HbA1c 水平。

结果

在干预组和对照组中,HbA1c 水平从 T0 到 T4 的下降均具有统计学意义(-0.67%(95%CI:-0.80,-0.54%;p<0.0001)和-0.64%(95%CI:-0.78,-0.51%;p<0.0001))。然而,两组之间没有统计学上的显著差异。

结论

尽管 DEBATE 试验未能证实与常规护理相比,所测试的干预措施的有效性,但结果表明,控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病患者能够改善其血糖水平。这一发现可能鼓励医生继续定期关注这一患者群体。

试验注册

该试验在 ISRCTN 注册处注册,注册号为 ISRCTN70713571。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/6593484/3937def9c3ae/12875_2019_977_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/6593484/2a1eede53709/12875_2019_977_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/6593484/3937def9c3ae/12875_2019_977_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/6593484/2a1eede53709/12875_2019_977_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/efa4/6593484/3937def9c3ae/12875_2019_977_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Patient-centered communication and shared decision making to reduce HbA1c levels of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus - results of the cluster-randomized controlled DEBATE trial.以患者为中心的沟通和共同决策,以降低血糖控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病患者的 HbA1c 水平 - DEBATE 试验的集群随机对照结果。
BMC Fam Pract. 2019 Jun 25;20(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0977-9.
2
Shared decision making and patient-centeredness for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care-results of the cluster-randomised controlled DEBATE trial.在初级保健中,针对血糖控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病患者的共同决策和以患者为中心-DEBATE 试验的集群随机对照结果。
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 May 15;22(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01436-6.
3
HbA1c as a shared treatment goal in type 2 diabetes? A secondary analysis of the DEBATE trial.HbA1c 作为 2 型糖尿病的共同治疗目标?DEBATE 试验的二次分析。
BMC Prim Care. 2023 May 13;24(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12875-023-02067-9.
4
Improvement of primary health care of patients with poorly regulated diabetes mellitus type 2 using shared decision-making--the DEBATE trial.采用共决策改善 2 型糖尿病患者初级卫生保健:DEBATE 试验。
BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Aug 22;13:88. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-88.
5
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.
6
Evaluation of an mHealth-enabled hierarchical diabetes management intervention in primary care in China (ROADMAP): A cluster randomized trial.评估移动医疗支持的中国基层医疗中分级糖尿病管理干预(ROADMAP):一项群组随机试验。
PLoS Med. 2021 Sep 21;18(9):e1003754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003754. eCollection 2021 Sep.
7
Health Coaching Reduces HbA1c in Type 2 Diabetic Patients From a Lower-Socioeconomic Status Community: A Randomized Controlled Trial.健康指导降低了来自低社会经济地位社区的2型糖尿病患者的糖化血红蛋白水平:一项随机对照试验。
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 5;17(10):e224. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4871.
8
Stratified patient-centered care in type 2 diabetes: a cluster-randomized, controlled clinical trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.2 型糖尿病的分层以患者为中心的护理:一项关于有效性和成本效益的集群随机对照临床试验。
Diabetes Care. 2013 Oct;36(10):3054-61. doi: 10.2337/dc12-1865. Epub 2013 Aug 15.
9
[Does place of residence have an influence on shared decision making for patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice?].[居住地点对全科医疗中2型糖尿病患者的共同决策有影响吗?]
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018 Nov;137-138:36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2018.07.008. Epub 2018 Sep 1.
10
Use of the Diabetes Medication Choice Decision Aid in patients with type 2 diabetes in Greece: a cluster randomised trial.希腊2型糖尿病患者使用糖尿病药物选择决策辅助工具:一项整群随机试验。
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012185. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012185.

引用本文的文献

1
Patient-physician communication of health and risk information in the management of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a systematic scoping review.心血管疾病和糖尿病管理中患者与医生之间关于健康和风险信息的沟通:一项系统性综述
BMC Med. 2025 Feb 21;23(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12916-025-03873-x.
2
The effects of shared decision-making informed dietary intervention based on digital health technology in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial.基于数字健康技术的共同决策知情饮食干预对老年2型糖尿病患者的影响:一项随机对照试验。
Digit Health. 2024 Oct 13;10:20552076241272514. doi: 10.1177/20552076241272514. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.提高医疗保健专业人员共同决策使用率的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 19;7(7):CD006732. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4.
2
General practitioners' attitudes towards patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study.全科医生对2型糖尿病控制不佳患者的态度:一项定性研究。
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 May 2;19(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12875-018-0751-4.
3
Improving risk factor management for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of healthcare interventions in primary care and community settings.
Patient-centered care in diabetes care-concepts, relationships and practice.
糖尿病护理中的以患者为中心的护理——概念、关系与实践
World J Diabetes. 2024 Jul 15;15(7):1417-1429. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v15.i7.1417.
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
Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.共享决策在心血管危险因素管理中的应用:系统评价和荟萃分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Mar 4;7(3):e243779. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3779.
6
Shared decision-making training in general practice: a rapid review.全科医疗中的共同决策培训:快速综述
Future Healthc J. 2023 Jul;10(2):147-153. doi: 10.7861/fhj.2022-0120.
7
HbA1c as a shared treatment goal in type 2 diabetes? A secondary analysis of the DEBATE trial.HbA1c 作为 2 型糖尿病的共同治疗目标?DEBATE 试验的二次分析。
BMC Prim Care. 2023 May 13;24(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12875-023-02067-9.
8
GPs' perceptions of teaching methods in shared decision-making training: a qualitative study.全科医生对共享决策培训中教学方法的看法:一项定性研究。
Br J Gen Pract. 2023 Mar 30;73(729):e310-e317. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2022.0194. Print 2023 Apr.
9
Formative Qualitative Research: Design Considerations for a Self-Directed Lifestyle Intervention for Type-2 Diabetes Patients Using Human-Centered Design Principles in Benin.形成性定性研究:使用以人为中心的设计原则在贝宁为 2 型糖尿病患者设计自我指导生活方式干预的设计考虑因素。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 14;19(18):11552. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811552.
10
Does the SDMQ-9 Predict Changes in HbA1c Levels? An Ecuadorian Cohort.SDMQ-9 能否预测 HbA1c 水平的变化?一项厄瓜多尔队列研究。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Mar 4;58(3):380. doi: 10.3390/medicina58030380.
改善血糖控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病患者的危险因素管理:初级保健和社区环境中医疗干预的系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 4;7(8):e015135. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015135.
4
Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences.实施共同决策:考虑所有后果。
Implement Sci. 2016 Aug 8;11:114. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0480-9.
5
A systematic review of interventions targeting primary care or community based professionals on cardio-metabolic risk factor control in people with diabetes.一项针对以初级保健或社区专业人员为对象的干预措施对糖尿病患者心血管代谢危险因素控制效果的系统评价。
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016 Mar;113:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.01.022. Epub 2016 Jan 21.
6
Improvement of primary health care of patients with poorly regulated diabetes mellitus type 2 using shared decision-making--the DEBATE trial.采用共决策改善 2 型糖尿病患者初级卫生保健:DEBATE 试验。
BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Aug 22;13:88. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-88.
7
Development and evaluation of the short version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument.慢性病照护患者评估工具简版的开发与评估
Chronic Illn. 2009 Dec;5(4):268-76. doi: 10.1177/1742395309348072. Epub 2009 Nov 19.
8
The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample.9 项共享决策问卷(SDM-Q-9)。在初级保健样本中的开发和心理测量特性。
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034. Epub 2009 Oct 30.
9
Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis.医生沟通与患者治疗依从性:一项荟萃分析。
Med Care. 2009 Aug;47(8):826-34. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819a5acc.
10
Interventions for improving adherence to treatment recommendations in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.改善2型糖尿病患者治疗建议依从性的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;2005(2):CD003638. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003638.pub2.