Clancy 2003.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods |
Group visits in medically and economically disadvantaged patients with type 2 diabetes and their relationships to clinical outcomes Patient RCT, conducted in an adult medical care centre at the University of South Carolina, USA Two arms: 1) Control (control arm) and 2) Group visit (intervention arm) |
|
| Participants | Control arm N: 61 Intervention arm N: 59 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: 54.0 ± 10.4 % Male: 21.7 Longest follow‐up: 6 months |
|
| Interventions |
Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Team changes 2) Patient education |
|
| Outcomes | 1) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 10.6 (NR), post 9.7 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 10.3 (NR), post 9.5 (NR) 2) LDL, mean mg/dL (SD) Control arm: pre 122.0 (NR), post 116.0 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 123.5 (NR), post 107.5 (NR) |
|
| Funding source | Ibis work was supported by the Improving Chronic Illness Care program (funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) and South Carolina Excellence Initiative for Eliminating Disparities in Healthcare program (funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Used a computer program for randomisation. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Patient told the doctor which intervention randomised to. |
| Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Do not report baseline characteristics by group, only overall in Table 1. |
| Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias) | Low risk | Report in the text that HbA1c, etc. was similar for 2 groups. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | Only 1 study participant dropped out. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias) | Low risk | Information not available. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Information not available. |
| Risk of contamination (other bias) | Unclear risk | Unclear if the same physician was seeing participants in both groups; may have changed treatment behaviour |
| Other bias | Low risk | Information not available. |