The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial
2011

Impact of Diabetes Report Cards on Disease Control

Sample size: 5457 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Henry H. Fischer, Sheri L. Eisert, Josh M. Durfee, Susan L. Moore, Andrew W. Steele, Kevin McCullen, Katherine Anderson, Lara Penny, Thomas D. Mackenzie

Primary Institution: Denver Health and Hospital Authority

Hypothesis

Can tailored diabetes registry report cards improve disease control measures?

Conclusion

While patient report cards were well received, they did not improve clinical outcomes, but targeted feedback to providers did enhance glycemic control.

Supporting Evidence

  • Patients receiving mailed report cards were less likely to present for testing for blood pressure and glycemic control.
  • Provider performance feedback led to a greater increase in glycemic control compared to control clinics.
  • Patient satisfaction with report cards was generally high despite no improvement in clinical outcomes.

Takeaway

The study tried to help diabetes patients by sending them report cards, but it didn't really make them healthier; however, giving doctors specific feedback did help some patients.

Methodology

A nested randomized trial involving 5,457 low-income adults with diabetes across eight clinics, comparing mailed report cards and provider feedback.

Potential Biases

Differences in race/ethnicity among clinic groupings may introduce bias.

Limitations

The study faced challenges in detecting performance changes at the clinic level and had a low survey response rate.

Participant Demographics

Participants were primarily low-income adults with diabetes, many uninsured (43%), on Medicaid (18%), or Medicare (26%), with a majority being Latino (59%) and a significant African-American minority (21%).

Statistical Information

P-Value

p < 0.001

Confidence Interval

CI -0.131 - -0.077

Statistical Significance

p < 0.001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1472-6947-11-12

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication