You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knowledge transfer and behavior modification interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients—the INDICA study: a cluster randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0233-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yolanda Ramallo-Fariña, Lidia García-Pérez, Iván Castilla-Rodríguez, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez, Ana María Wägner, Pedro de Pablos-Velasco, Armando Carrillo Domínguez, Mauro Boronat Cortés, Laura Vallejo-Torres, Marcos Estupiñán Ramírez, Pablo Pedrianes Martín, Ignacio García-Puente, Miguel Ángel Salinero-Fort, Pedro Guillermo Serrano-Aguilar, INDICA team |
| Abstract |
Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease whose health outcomes are related to patients and healthcare professionals' decision-making. The Diabetes Intervention study in the Canary Islands (INDICA study) aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of educational interventions supported by new technology decision tools for type 2 diabetes patients and primary care professionals in the Canary Islands. The INDICA study is an open, community-based, multicenter, clinical controlled trial with random allocation by clusters to one of three interventions or to usual care. The setting is primary care where physicians and nurses are invited to participate. Patients with diabetes diagnosis, 18-65 years of age, and regular users of mobile phone were randomly selected. Patients with severe comorbidities were excluded. The clusters are primary healthcare practices with enough professionals and available places to provide the intervention. The calculated sample size was 2,300 patients. Patients in group 1 are receiving an educational group program of eight sessions every 3 months led by trained nurses and monitored by means of logs and a web-based platform and tailored semi-automated SMS for continuous support. Primary care professionals in group 2 are receiving a short educational program to update their diabetes knowledge, which includes a decision support tool embedded into the electronic clinical record and a monthly feedback report of patients' results. Group 3 is receiving a combination of the interventions for patients and professionals. The primary endpoint is the change in HbA1c in 2 years. Secondary endpoints are cardiovascular risk factors, macrovascular and microvascular diabetes complications, quality of life, psychological outcomes, diabetes knowledge, and healthcare utilization. Data is being collected from interviews, questionnaires, clinical examinations, and records. Generalized linear mixed models with repeated time measurements will be used to analyze changes in outcomes. The cost-effectiveness analysis, from the healthcare services perspective, involves direct medical costs per quality-adjusted life year gained and two periods, a 'within-trial' period and a lifetime Markov model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are planned. This ongoing trial aims to set up the implementation of evidence-based programs in the clinical setting for chronic patients. Clinical Trial.gov NCT01657227. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Portugal | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 408 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 402 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 56 | 14% |
| Researcher | 55 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 7% |
| Other | 79 | 19% |
| Unknown | 114 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 59 | 14% |
| Psychology | 31 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 4% |
| Other | 58 | 14% |
| Unknown | 134 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2015.
All research outputs
#6,952,116
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,172
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,599
of 264,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#33
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.