Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of intervention design, trial duration

From: The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature

Author/Country

Intervention design

Trial duration

No. patients (intervention/control)

No. doctors (intervention/control)

Data collection

Phillips [7]/USA. 2005

Clinicians were randomized to be controls or receive either computerized reminders, feedback on performance from specialized endocrinologist or both interventions. Feedback sessions with endocrinologist focused on individual provider actions or outcomes of specific patients.

3 years.

4138 (3155 divided into 3 groups/983)

345 (?/?)

Research assistants encountered with all the patients to collect data.

Sequist [14]/USA. 2005

Clinics were randomized so that physicians received either evidence-based electronic reminders within their patients' electronic medical record or usual care. There were five reminders for diabetes care.

6 months

4549 (2924/3319). No drop out.

194 (92/102)

Data collected using existing databases.

Frijling [8]/NL. 2002

The intervention group received feedback reports and support from a facilitator; the control group received no special attention.

23 months

2859 encounters (?/?) The exact number of patients is not reported.

124(62/62) Drop out: 2,4%

GPs filled out encounter forms and questionnaires about patient characteristics.

Lobach [9]/USA. 1994

Clinicians were randomized to receive either a special encounter form with the computer-generated guideline recommendations or a standard encounter form.

6 months

359 (?/?).

58 (?/?).30 doctors included in analysis.

Researcher collected data by chart review.

Nilasena [10]/USA. 1995

Internal medicine residents were randomised to receive either computer-generated patient-specific reminders about the diabetes guidelines or a nonspecific report.

6 months

480 (?/?). 164 included in analysis (excluded: 66%)

35 (?/?)

Researcher collected data by chart review.

Hetlevik [15]/N. 2000

Clinics were randomized to receive either electronic clinical reminders within the electronic patient records and reports on diabetes care in general or no special attention.

18 months

1034 (499/535)

53 (24/29)

Data was collected in GPs records. A questionnaire was distributed among the participating GPs

Kenealy [11]/NZ. 2005

Four intervention arms: patient reminders, computer reminders, both reminders, and usual care. The patient reminder was a diabetes risk self-assessment sheet filled in by patients and given to the doctor during the consultation. The computer reminder was an icon that flashed only for patients considered eligible for diabetes screening. Clinics were units of randomization.

2 months

5628. (4756 divided in 3 groups)/872)

112 (83/29). Drop out 13,4%.

GPs answered on encounter forms whether or not they had screened for diabetes.

Kiefe [16]/USA. 2001

Physicians were assigned to either a multimodal improvement intervention, including chart review and physician-specific feedback or an identical intervention plus achievable benchmark feedback.

3 years

2978 (?/?)

70 (35/35)

Data obtained from chart review by researchers

de Fine Olivarius[12]/DK. 2001

Clinicians were randomized to either controls or structured care comprising of regular follow up and goal setting of specific patients. This was supported by prompting of doctors, clinical guidelines, feedback and continuing medical education.

6 years

944 (459/415)

484 (?/?). Drop out: 40,5% in both control and intervention group.

Data collected through GPs, through eye doctors, via laboratory databases and via questionnaires to patients.

Glasgow [13]/USA. 2004

Physicians were randomised to receive either a CD ROM-assisted diabetes care enhancement program were patients were invited to complete the computerized Diabetes Priority Program touch screen assessment and feedback procedure, or to receive no special attention.

6 months

886 (469/417)

52 (24/28)

Data primarily collected via patients. Some data collected in laboratory database.

  1. ? = Information unavailable in paper