Title |
The chronic care model for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13098-015-0119-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Deise Regina Baptista, Astrid Wiens, Roberto Pontarolo, Lara Regis, Walleri Christine Torelli Reis, Cassiano Januário Correr |
Abstract |
The chronic care model (CCM) uses a systematic approach to restructure health care systems. The aim of this systematic review was to examine studies that evaluated different elements of the CCM in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and to assess the influence of the CCM on different clinical outcomes. There view was performed in the Medline and Cochrane Library electronic databases. The search was limited to randomized controlled trials conducted with T2DM patients. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared usual care with interventions that use done or more elements of the CCM and assessed the impact on clinical outcomes. After applying the eligibility criteria, 12 studies were included for data extraction. Of these, six showed evidence of effectiveness of the CCM for T2DM management in primary care as well as significant improvements in clinical outcomes. In the other six studies, no improvements regarding clinical outcomes were observed when comparing the intervention and control groups. Some limitations, such as a short follow-up period and a low number of patients, were observed. Some studies showed that the reorganization of health systems can improveT2DM care. However, it is possible that greater benefits could be obtained through combing all 6 elements of CCM. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 5 | 83% |
Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Mexico | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 353 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 55 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 33 | 9% |
Researcher | 27 | 8% |
Other | 22 | 6% |
Other | 83 | 23% |
Unknown | 95 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 26% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 64 | 18% |
Social Sciences | 18 | 5% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 3% |
Unspecified | 11 | 3% |
Other | 52 | 15% |
Unknown | 108 | 30% |