↓ Skip to main content

Shared decision making in type 2 diabetes with a support decision tool that takes into account clinical factors, the intensity of treatment and patient preferences: design of a cluster randomised (OPTI…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
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.
Title
Shared decision making in type 2 diabetes with a support decision tool that takes into account clinical factors, the intensity of treatment and patient preferences: design of a cluster randomised (OPTIMAL) trial
Published in
BMC Primary Care, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0230-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henk den Ouden, Rimke C Vos, Carla Reidsma, Guy EHM Rutten

Abstract

No more than 10-15% of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients achieve all treatment goals regarding glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure. Shared decision making (SDM) should increase that percentage; however, not all support decision tools are appropriate. Because the ADDITION-Europe study demonstrated two (almost) equally effective treatments but with slightly different intensities, it may be a good starting point to discuss with the patients their diabetes treatment, taking into account both the intensity of treatment, clinical factors and patients' preferences. We aim to evaluate whether such an approach increases the proportion of patients that achieve all three treatment goals. In a cluster-randomised trial including 40 general practices, that participated until 2009 in the ADDITION Study, 150 T2DM patients 60-80 years, known with T2DM for 8-15 years, will be included. Practices are randomised a second time, i.e. intervention practices in the ADDITION study could be control practices in the current study and vice versa. For the GPs from the intervention group a 2-hour training in SDM was developed as well as a decision support tool to be used during the consultation. GPs plan the first visit with the patients to decide on the intensity of the treatment, personalised targets and the priorities of treatment. The control group will continue with the treatment they were allocated to in the ADDITION study. 24 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve all three treatment goals. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients who achieve five treatment goals (HbA1c, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body weight, not smoking), evaluation of the SDM process (SDM-Q9 and CPS), satisfaction with the treatment (DTSQ), wellbeing and quality of life (W-BQ12, ADD QoL-19), health status (SF-36, EQ-5D) and coping (DCMQ). The proportions of achieved treatment goals will be compared between both groups. For the secondary outcomes mixed models will be used. The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht has approved the study protocol (Protocol number: 11-153). This trial will provide evidence whether an intervention with a multi-faceted decision support tool increases the proportion of achieved personalised goals in type 2 diabetes patients. NCT02285881 , November 4, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 18%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 34 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 44 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,953
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,458
of 270,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#37
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 270,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.