Electronic Feedback on Diabetic Care to General Practitioners
NCT ID: NCT01009528
Last Updated: 2009-11-09
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
2458 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2007-03-31
2009-11-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Measuring Patient Engagement in Diabetes Care
NCT02988427
Digital Individualized and Collaborative Treatment of T2D in General Practice Based on Decision Aid
NCT04880005
Effectiveness of a Computerised Prompt for Primary and Secondary Care Physicians to Refer or Refer Back Type 2 Diabetes Patients
NCT02229110
Evaluation of Pharmacist Intervention for Individuals With Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes
NCT05442840
Automated Diabetes Registry Tools to Enhance Patient Self-Management and Provider Performance Feedback
NCT00827710
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Method: The general practitioners (GP´s) of the Region of Southern Denmark have been randomised to either admission or no admission to the electronic feedback system. The system was launched 1/3-2007 and ran for one year prior to evaluation.
Quantitative evaluation by assessment of the following end-points: Patients Hba1c-level, number of patients who have had their hba1c-level measured within the last year, cholesterol-level and number of patients who have had an eye examination within the last year.
Qualitative evaluation by interviewing GP´s who have had admission to the system.
Qualitative data have been collected through interviews with intervention GPs, designed to uncover motivational factors as well as barriers concerning the use of feedback on chronic care in general practice. Data are being analyzed.
Quantitative data are being gathered. Perspective: This project will shed light on the value of electronic feedback systems within chronic care in general practice.
Based on this project it will be possible to set up a system for automatic electronic monitoring and feedback of the quality of care in general practice, taking motivational factors of the GP s into account during implementation.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Intervention
Admission to electronic feedback system
Electronic feedback system on diabetes care
An electronic feedback system was introduced in randomized primary care clinics providing an overview of quality of care. The intervention ran for 15 months.
control
Control group. No special attention
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Electronic feedback system on diabetes care
An electronic feedback system was introduced in randomized primary care clinics providing an overview of quality of care. The intervention ran for 15 months.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patient alive throughout the intervention period.
* GP actively working throughout the intervention period (not retired).
Exclusion Criteria
* moved out of geographic area during intervention
* GP retired during intervention
40 Years
70 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Aarhus
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Institute of Public Health, Aarhus University
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Torsten Lauritzen, MD, Dr. Med.
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Professor
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Dept. of General Medicine, Institute of Public Health, Aarhus University
Aarhus, , Denmark
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Guldberg TL, Lauritzen T, Kristensen JK, Vedsted P. The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature. BMC Fam Pract. 2009 May 6;10:30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-10-30.
Guldberg TL, Vedsted P, Kristensen JK, Lauritzen T. Improved quality of Type 2 diabetes care following electronic feedback of treatment status to general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2011 Mar;28(3):325-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03178.x.
Guldberg TL, Vedsted P, Lauritzen T, Zoffmann V. Suboptimal quality of type 2 diabetes care discovered through electronic feedback led to increased nurse-GP cooperation. A qualitative study. Prim Care Diabetes. 2010 Apr;4(1):33-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2010.01.001. Epub 2010 Jan 21.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2008-41-2792
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.