Chan 2014.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods |
Effects of telephone‐based peer support in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving integrated care. A randomized clinical trial Patient RCT, conducted in 3 publicly funded hospital‐based diabetes centres, China Two arms: 1) JADE (control arm) and 2) JADE + PEARL (intervention arm) |
|
| Participants | Control arm N: 316 Intervention arm N: 312 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: 54.7 ± 9.3 % Male: 56.5 Longest follow‐up: 12 months |
|
| Interventions |
Control arm: 1) Electronic patient registry 2) Clinician reminders 3) Facilitated relay of clinical information 4) Promotion of self‐management 5) Patient reminders Intervention arm: 1) Case management 2) Team changes 3) Electronic patient registry 4) Clinician reminders 5) Facilitated relay of clinical information 6) Promotion of self‐management 7) Patient reminders |
|
| Outcomes | 1) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 8.2 (1.6), post 7.9 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 8.2 (1.7), post 7.9 (NR) 2) SBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 135.0 (19.0), post 132.3 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 136.0 (19.0), post 132.8 (NR) 3) DBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 80.0 (11.0), post 76.2 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 80.0 (10.0), post 76.4 (NR) 4) LDL, mean mg/dL (SD) Control arm: pre 111.0 (31.7), post 121.0 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 112.1 (31.3), post 123.4 (NR) |
|
| Funding source | This study was supported by the Asia Diabetes Foundation, partially funded by an educational grant by Merck, and the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation Peers for Progress Program, funded by the Eli Lilly and Company Foundation | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer‐generated random number. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Consecutively numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes. |
| Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias) | Low risk | General obesity P = 0.047; all other characteristics balanced. |
| Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias) | Low risk | Information not available. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | ~8.2% lost to follow‐up in control; ~5.1% lost to follow‐up in intervention; reasons seem balanced. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Primary outcome: HbA1c, no mention of how it was measured. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Information not available. |
| Risk of contamination (other bias) | High risk | Information not available. |
| Other bias | Low risk | Information not available. |