Li Jia, Xu Zhihan, Zhou Huilan, Li Zhansheng, Yuan Beibei
Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Center for Health Development Studies, Peking University, Beijing, China.
BMC Prim Care. 2025 Feb 18;26(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12875-025-02743-y.
Diabetes mellitus requires ongoing management and care coordination. The majority of patients with diabetes were managed in primary healthcare settings. Several quality improvement programs have introduced specialist involvement in primary healthcare teams. However, synthesized evidence is needed to support policy improvements regarding the impact of specialist-primary healthcare coordination on glycemic control in diabetes care.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of specialist involvement in primary healthcare teams on glycemic control of patients with diabetes.
A search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CNKI, and Wanfang Database) was conducted to identify relevant studies published until October 21st, 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care). We conducted the certainty assessment using the GRADE guideline. The outcome measured was the HbA1c level. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.
A total of 12 studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 5 controlled before-after studies) were included in the meta-analysis. The involvement of specialists in primary healthcare teams was associated with a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c level compared to usual or standard care (mean difference - 0.57, 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.27, I = 88.17%).
The findings revealed that the interventions might improve the care delivered and patients' health outcomes. However, due to the very low certainty of evidence on the effectiveness on glycemic control, the interventions implemented in the included studies should be employed with caution in future policy-making to achieve improved HbA1c levels. Further research with a more rigorous design is needed to provide evidence of higher certainty and quality.
The systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration No. CRD42022384589 available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced ).
糖尿病需要持续管理和护理协调。大多数糖尿病患者在基层医疗环境中接受治疗。一些质量改进项目引入了专科医生参与基层医疗团队。然而,需要综合证据来支持有关专科医生与基层医疗协调对糖尿病护理中血糖控制影响的政策改进。
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估专科医生参与基层医疗团队对糖尿病患者血糖控制的有效性。
检索了五个电子数据库(PubMed、Embase、Web of Science核心合集、中国知网和万方数据库),以确定截至2023年10月21日发表的相关研究。我们使用EPOC(Cochrane有效实践与护理组织)建议的偏倚风险标准评估纳入研究的方法学质量。我们使用GRADE指南进行确定性评估。测量的结局是糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平。使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。
荟萃分析共纳入12项研究(7项随机对照试验和5项前后对照研究)。与常规或标准护理相比,专科医生参与基层医疗团队与糖化血红蛋白水平在统计学上显著降低相关(平均差值 -0.57,95%置信区间:-0.86至-0.27,I² = 88.17%)。
研究结果表明,这些干预措施可能改善所提供的护理和患者的健康结局。然而,由于关于血糖控制有效性的证据确定性非常低,在未来政策制定中应谨慎采用纳入研究中实施的干预措施,以实现糖化血红蛋白水平的改善。需要进行更严格设计的进一步研究,以提供更高确定性和质量的证据。
该系统评价和荟萃分析已在PROSPERO国际前瞻性系统评价注册库中注册(注册号CRD42022384589,可在https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced获取)