human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE —The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of a multicomponent organizational intervention can produce significant change in diabetes care and outcomes in community primary care practice s. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS —This was a group-r and omized , controlled clinical trial evaluating the practical effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention ( TRANSLATE )  in 24 practice s. The intervention included implementation of an electronic diabetes registry , visit reminders , and patient-specific physician alerts . A site coordinator facilitated previsit planning and a monthly review of performance with a local physician champion . The principle outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving target values for the composite of systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) < 130 mmHg , LDL cholesterol < 100 mg/dl , and A1C < 7.0 % at baseline and 12 months . Six process measures were also followed . RESULTS —Over 24 months , 69,965 visits from 8,405 adult patients with type 2 diabetes were recorded from 238 health care providers in 24 practice s from 17 health systems .  Diabetes process measures increased significantly more in intervention than in control practice s , giving net increases as follows : foot examinations 35.0 % ( P < 0.0.001 ) ; annual eye examinations 25.9 % ( P < 0.001 ) ; renal testing 28.5 % ( P < 0.001 ) ; A1C testing 8.1%(P < 0.001 ) ; blood pressure monitoring 3.5 % ( P = 0.05 ) ; and LDL testing 8.6 % ( P < 0.001 ) . Mean A1C adjusted for age , sex , and comorbidity decreased significantly in intervention practice s ( P < 0.02 ) . At 12 months , intervention practice s had significantly greater improvement in achieving recommended clinical values for SBP , A1C , and LDL than control clinics ( P = 0.002 ) . CONCLUSIONS — Introduction of a multicomponent organizational intervention in the primary care setting significantly increases the percentage of type 2 diabetic patients achieving recommended clinical outcomes OBJECTIVE To evaluate a clinic-based multimedia intervention for diabetes education targeting individuals with low health literacy levels in a diverse population . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Five public clinics in Chicago , Illinois , participated in the study with computer kiosks installed in waiting room areas . Two hundred forty-four subjects with diabetes were r and omized to receive either supplemental computer multimedia use ( intervention ) or st and ard of care only ( control ) . The intervention includes audio/video sequences to communicate information , provide psychological support , and promote diabetes self-management skills without extensive text or complex navigation .  HbA(1c ) ( A1C ) , BMI , blood pressure , diabetes knowledge , self-efficacy , self-reported medical care , and perceived susceptibility of complications were evaluated at baseline and 1 year . Computer usage patterns and implementation barriers were also examined . RESULTS Complete 1-year data were available for 183 subjects ( 75 % ) . Overall , there were no significant differences in change in A1C , weight , blood pressure , knowledge , self-efficacy , or self-reported medical care between intervention and control groups . However , there was an increase in perceived susceptibility to diabetes complications in the intervention group . This effect was greatest among subjects with lower health literacy . Within the intervention group , time spent on the computer was greater for subjects with higher health literacy . CONCLUSIONS Access to multimedia lessons result ed in an increase in perceived susceptibility to diabetes complications , particularly in subjects with lower health literacy . Despite measures to improve informational access for individuals with lower health literacy , there was relatively less use of the computer among these participants Objective To determine whether a diabetes case management telemedicine intervention reduced healthcare expenditures , as measured by Medicare cl aims , and to assess the costs of developing and implementing the telemedicine intervention . Design We studied 1665 participants in the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine ( IDEATel ) , a r and omized controlled trial comparing telemedicine case management of diabetes to usual care . Participants were aged 55 years or older , and resided in federally design ated medically underserved areas of New York State . Measurements We analyzed Medicare cl aims payments for each participant for up to 60 study months from date of r and omization , until their death , or until December 31 , 2006 ( whichever happened first ) . We also analyzed study expenditures for the telemedicine intervention over six budget years ( February 28 , 2000- February 27 , 2006 ) . Results Mean annual Medicare payments ( SE ) were similar in the usual care and telemedicine groups , $ 9040 ( $ 386 ) and $ 9669 ( $ 443 ) per participant , respectively ( p>0.05 ) . Sensitivity analyses , including stratification by censored status , adjustment by enrollment site , and semi-parametric weighting by probability of dropping-out , rendered similar results . Over six budget years 28 821 participant/months of telemedicine intervention were delivered , at an estimated cost of $ 622 per participant/month . Conclusion Telemedicine case management was not associated with a reduction in Medicare cl aims in this medically underserved population . The cost of implementing the telemedicine intervention was high , largely representing special purpose hardware and software costs required at the time . Lower implementation costs will need to be achieved using lower cost technology in order for telemedicine case management to be more widely used & NA ; Low health literacy is more prevalent in persons with limited education , members of ethnic minorities , and those who speak English as a second language , and is associated with multiple adverse diabetes‐related health outcomes . This study examined the effectiveness of a low health literacy and culturally sensitive diabetes education program for economically and socially disadvantaged adult patients with type 2 diabetes . A pre – post prospect i ve study design was used to examine outcomes over 12 months . Outcome measures included diabetes knowledge , self‐efficacy , and self‐care , measured using reliable and valid survey tools , and A1C . Over this period of time 277 patients were enrolled in the program , with 106 participants completing survey data . At the completion of the program patients had significant improvements in diabetes knowledge ( p < .001 ) , self‐efficacy ( p < .001 ) , and three domains of self‐care including diet ( p < .001 ) , foot care ( p < .001 ) , and exercise ( p < .001 ) . There were no significant improvements in the frequency of blood glucose testing ( p = .345 ) . Additionally , A1C values significantly improved 3 months after completing the program ( p = .007 ) . In conclusion , a diabetes education program design ed to be culturally sensitive and meet the needs of individuals with low health literacy improves short‐term outcomes IN THE EARLY 1890S , DR WILLIAM HALSTED DEVELOPED radical mastectomy for breast cancer . Surgeons performed the Halsted procedure for more than 80 years even though there was little systematic evidence for its success . Then a new breed of scholars subjected the procedure to formal methods of evaluation unknown to Halsted . The methods —r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) principal among them — led to a surprise : radical mastectomy had no advantage over simpler forms of treatment . This is but 1 example of the hard-won victory of evidence over belief in medicine . The pioneers of the formal evaluation of medical practice s raised questions that traditional practitioners did not welcome . But in time , formal evaluation prevailed . The pioneers developed a hierarchy of evidentiary rigor relating the design of a study to the confidence that could be placed in the findings , from the lowly , nearly valueless anecdote to the royalty of evidence , the RCT . Concurrently , a similar story of hard-won learning unfolded in the so-called quality movement . Scholars illuminated the scale and types of defects in the processes of care and the outcomes , including high rates of unscientific care , inappropriate care , geographic variations in practice , latent disagreements among specialists , and oftenunrecognized medical injury to patients . Like the pioneers of evidence -based medicine , students of medical quality were at first largely ignored , but no longer . In 1999 and 2001 , the Institute of Medicine published 2 l and mark reports on the evidence for quality failures and called urgently for re design of care systems to achieve improvements . The story could end here happily with 2 great streams of endeavor merging into a framework for conjoint action : improving clinical evidence and improving the process of care . Instead , the 2 endeavors are often in unhappy tension . Neither disputes that progress toward health care ’s main goal , the relief of illness and pain , requires research of many kinds : basic , clinical , systems , epidemiologic . The disagreement centers on epistemology — ways to get at “ truth ” and how those ways should vary depending on the knowledge sought . Individuals most involved in day-to-day improvement work fear that if “ evidence ” is too narrowly defined and the approach to gathering evidence too severely constrained , progress may be the victim . For example , the RCT is a powerful , perhaps unequaled , research design to explore the efficacy of conceptually neat components of clinical practice —tests , drugs , and procedures . For other crucially important learning purpose s , however , it serves less well . Recent controversies about the evaluation of rapid response  teams  provide a case in point . These controversies show the importance of adjusting research methods to fit research questions . Although only 10 % to 15 % of in patients resuscitated outside intensive care units survive to hospital discharge , early warning signs are present in a large percentage of patients who ultimately experience cardiac arrest .  Rapid response team systems bring expert clinicians to the bedsides of deteriorating patients before arrest occurs . In the mid 1990s , based largely on reports from Australian investigators , the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and others began introducing the concept to willing hospitals . Local experience strongly suggested that these systems often , although not always , were associated with improved outcomes , including reduced anxiety among nursing staff ; increased interdisciplinary teamwork ; decreased cardiac arrests outside of intensive care units ; and , in some cases , declines in mortality . The evidence base took a turn in June 2005 with the publication of the Medical Early Response Intervention and Therapy ( MERIT ) Study , a cluster r and omized prospect i ve trial that cl aim ed to find no beneficial effect of these teams on several primary outcomes . Controversy has continued since then regarding the scientific evidence for rapid response systems . In fact , the MERIT trial was not negative ; it was inconclusive . The study team encountered an array of serious problems in execution , common in social science . For example , although the study ’s power calculation assumed a baseline rate of 30 events per 1000 admissions , the actual rate proved to be fewer than 7 events per 1000 admissions ; thus , the study was ef fect ively underpowered by 500 % . Crosscontamination abounded ; some control hospitals implemented rapid response protocol s , and several study Background Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex , progressive disease which requires a variety of quality improvement strategies . Limited information is available on the feasibility and effectiveness of interdisciplinary diabetes care teams ( IDCT ) operating on the interface between primary and specialty care . A first study hypothesis was that the implementation of an IDCT is feasible in a health care setting with limited tradition in shared care . A second hypothesis was that patients who make use of an IDCT  would have significantly better outcomes compared to non-users of the IDCT after an 18-month intervention period . A third hypothesis was that patients who used the IDCT in an Advanced quality Improvement Program ( AQIP ) would have significantly better outcomes compared to users of a Usual Quality Improvement Program ( UQIP ) . Methods This investigation comprised a two-arm cluster r and omized trial conducted in a primary care setting in Belgium . Primary care physicians ( PCPs , n = 120 ) and their patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ( n = 2495 ) were included and subjects were r and omly assigned to the intervention arms . The IDCT acted as a cornerstone to both the intervention arms , but the number , type and intensity of IDCT related interventions varied depending upon the intervention arm . Results Final registration included 67 PCPs and 1577 patients in the AQIP and 53 PCPs and 918 patients in the UQIP . 84 % of the PCPs made use of the IDCT .  The expected participation rate in patients ( 30 % ) was not attained , with 12,5 % of the patients using the IDCT .  When comparing users and non-users of the IDCT ( irrespective of the intervention arm ) and after 18 months of intervention the use of the IDCT was significantly associated with improvements in HbA1c , LDL-cholesterol , an increase in statins and anti-platelet therapy as well as the number of targets that were reached . When comparing users of the IDCT in the two intervention arms no significant differences were noted , except for anti-platelet therapy . Conclusion IDCT 's operating on the interface between primary and specialty care are associated with improved outcomes of care . More research is required on what team and program characteristics contribute to improvements in diabetes care . Trial registration NTR 1369 Background Most research publications on Chronic Care Model ( CCM ) implementation originate from organizations or countries with a well-structured primary health care system . Information about efforts made in countries with a less well-organized primary health care system is scarce . In 2003 , the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance commissioned a pilot study to explore how care for type 2 diabetes patients could be organized in a more efficient way in the Belgian healthcare setting , a setting where the organisational framework for chronic care is mainly hospital-centered . Methods Process evaluation of an action research project ( 2003–2007 ) guided by the CCM in a well-defined geographical area with 76,826 inhabitants and an 
    Output:
    
agent
It is likely that investments at the social context level will also help to decrease the development of barriers at the organisational context level , especially by increasing staff involvement and satisfaction .
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE —The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of a multicomponent organizational intervention can produce significant change in diabetes care and outcomes in community primary care practice s. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS —This was a group-r and omized , controlled clinical trial evaluating the practical effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention ( TRANSLATE )  in 24 practice s. The intervention included implementation of an electronic diabetes registry , visit reminders , and patient-specific physician alerts . A site coordinator facilitated previsit planning and a monthly review of performance with a local physician champion . The principle outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving target values for the composite of systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) < 130 mmHg , LDL cholesterol < 100 mg/dl , and A1C < 7.0 % at baseline and 12 months . Six process measures were also followed . RESULTS —Over 24 months , 69,965 visits from 8,405 adult patients with type 2 diabetes were recorded from 238 health care providers in 24 practice s from 17 health systems .  Diabetes process measures increased significantly more in intervention than in control practice s , giving net increases as follows : foot examinations 35.0 % ( P < 0.0.001 ) ; annual eye examinations 25.9 % ( P < 0.001 ) ; renal testing 28.5 % ( P < 0.001 ) ; A1C testing 8.1%(P < 0.001 ) ; blood pressure monitoring 3.5 % ( P = 0.05 ) ; and LDL testing 8.6 % ( P < 0.001 ) . Mean A1C adjusted for age , sex , and comorbidity decreased significantly in intervention practice s ( P < 0.02 ) . At 12 months , intervention practice s had significantly greater improvement in achieving recommended clinical values for SBP , A1C , and LDL than control clinics ( P = 0.002 ) . CONCLUSIONS — Introduction of a multicomponent organizational intervention in the primary care setting significantly increases the percentage of type 2 diabetic patients achieving recommended clinical outcomes OBJECTIVE To evaluate a clinic-based multimedia intervention for diabetes education targeting individuals with low health literacy levels in a diverse population . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Five public clinics in Chicago , Illinois , participated in the study with computer kiosks installed in waiting room areas . Two hundred forty-four subjects with diabetes were r and omized to receive either supplemental computer multimedia use ( intervention ) or st and ard of care only ( control ) . The intervention includes audio/video sequences to communicate information , provide psychological support , and promote diabetes self-management skills without extensive text or complex navigation .  HbA(1c ) ( A1C ) , BMI , blood pressure , diabetes knowledge , self-efficacy , self-reported medical care , and perceived susceptibility of complications were evaluated at baseline and 1 year . Computer usage patterns and implementation barriers were also examined . RESULTS Complete 1-year data were available for 183 subjects ( 75 % ) . Overall , there were no significant differences in change in A1C , weight , blood pressure , knowledge , self-efficacy , or self-reported medical care between intervention and control groups . However , there was an increase in perceived susceptibility to diabetes complications in the intervention group . This effect was greatest among subjects with lower health literacy . Within the intervention group , time spent on the computer was greater for subjects with higher health literacy . CONCLUSIONS Access to multimedia lessons result ed in an increase in perceived susceptibility to diabetes complications , particularly in subjects with lower health literacy . Despite measures to improve informational access for individuals with lower health literacy , there was relatively less use of the computer among these participants Objective To determine whether a diabetes case management telemedicine intervention reduced healthcare expenditures , as measured by Medicare cl aims , and to assess the costs of developing and implementing the telemedicine intervention . Design We studied 1665 participants in the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine ( IDEATel ) , a r and omized controlled trial comparing telemedicine case management of diabetes to usual care . Participants were aged 55 years or older , and resided in federally design ated medically underserved areas of New York State . Measurements We analyzed Medicare cl aims payments for each participant for up to 60 study months from date of r and omization , until their death , or until December 31 , 2006 ( whichever happened first ) . We also analyzed study expenditures for the telemedicine intervention over six budget years ( February 28 , 2000- February 27 , 2006 ) . Results Mean annual Medicare payments ( SE ) were similar in the usual care and telemedicine groups , $ 9040 ( $ 386 ) and $ 9669 ( $ 443 ) per participant , respectively ( p>0.05 ) . Sensitivity analyses , including stratification by censored status , adjustment by enrollment site , and semi-parametric weighting by probability of dropping-out , rendered similar results . Over six budget years 28 821 participant/months of telemedicine intervention were delivered , at an estimated cost of $ 622 per participant/month . Conclusion Telemedicine case management was not associated with a reduction in Medicare cl aims in this medically underserved population . The cost of implementing the telemedicine intervention was high , largely representing special purpose hardware and software costs required at the time . Lower implementation costs will need to be achieved using lower cost technology in order for telemedicine case management to be more widely used & NA ; Low health literacy is more prevalent in persons with limited education , members of ethnic minorities , and those who speak English as a second language , and is associated with multiple adverse diabetes‐related health outcomes . This study examined the effectiveness of a low health literacy and culturally sensitive diabetes education program for economically and socially disadvantaged adult patients with type 2 diabetes . A pre – post prospect i ve study design was used to examine outcomes over 12 months . Outcome measures included diabetes knowledge , self‐efficacy , and self‐care , measured using reliable and valid survey tools , and A1C . Over this period of time 277 patients were enrolled in the program , with 106 participants completing survey data . At the completion of the program patients had significant improvements in diabetes knowledge ( p < .001 ) , self‐efficacy ( p < .001 ) , and three domains of self‐care including diet ( p < .001 ) , foot care ( p < .001 ) , and exercise ( p < .001 ) . There were no significant improvements in the frequency of blood glucose testing ( p = .345 ) . Additionally , A1C values significantly improved 3 months after completing the program ( p = .007 ) . In conclusion , a diabetes education program design ed to be culturally sensitive and meet the needs of individuals with low health literacy improves short‐term outcomes IN THE EARLY 1890S , DR WILLIAM HALSTED DEVELOPED radical mastectomy for breast cancer . Surgeons performed the Halsted procedure for more than 80 years even though there was little systematic evidence for its success . Then a new breed of scholars subjected the procedure to formal methods of evaluation unknown to Halsted . The methods —r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) principal among them — led to a surprise : radical mastectomy had no advantage over simpler forms of treatment . This is but 1 example of the hard-won victory of evidence over belief in medicine . The pioneers of the formal evaluation of medical practice s raised questions that traditional practitioners did not welcome . But in time , formal evaluation prevailed . The pioneers developed a hierarchy of evidentiary rigor relating the design of a study to the confidence that could be placed in the findings , from the lowly , nearly valueless anecdote to the royalty of evidence , the RCT . Concurrently , a similar story of hard-won learning unfolded in the so-called quality movement . Scholars illuminated the scale and types of defects in the processes of care and the outcomes , including high rates of unscientific care , inappropriate care , geographic variations in practice , latent disagreements among specialists , and oftenunrecognized medical injury to patients . Like the pioneers of evidence -based medicine , students of medical quality were at first largely ignored , but no longer . In 1999 and 2001 , the Institute of Medicine published 2 l and mark reports on the evidence for quality failures and called urgently for re design of care systems to achieve improvements . The story could end here happily with 2 great streams of endeavor merging into a framework for conjoint action : improving clinical evidence and improving the process of care . Instead , the 2 endeavors are often in unhappy tension . Neither disputes that progress toward health care ’s main goal , the relief of illness and pain , requires research of many kinds : basic , clinical , systems , epidemiologic . The disagreement centers on epistemology — ways to get at “ truth ” and how those ways should vary depending on the knowledge sought . Individuals most involved in day-to-day improvement work fear that if “ evidence ” is too narrowly defined and the approach to gathering evidence too severely constrained , progress may be the victim . For example , the RCT is a powerful , perhaps unequaled , research design to explore the efficacy of conceptually neat components of clinical practice —tests , drugs , and procedures . For other crucially important learning purpose s , however , it serves less well . Recent controversies about the evaluation of rapid response  teams  provide a case in point . These controversies show the importance of adjusting research methods to fit research questions . Although only 10 % to 15 % of in patients resuscitated outside intensive care units survive to hospital discharge , early warning signs are present in a large percentage of patients who ultimately experience cardiac arrest .  Rapid response team systems bring expert clinicians to the bedsides of deteriorating patients before arrest occurs . In the mid 1990s , based largely on reports from Australian investigators , the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and others began introducing the concept to willing hospitals . Local experience strongly suggested that these systems often , although not always , were associated with improved outcomes , including reduced anxiety among nursing staff ; increased interdisciplinary teamwork ; decreased cardiac arrests outside of intensive care units ; and , in some cases , declines in mortality . The evidence base took a turn in June 2005 with the publication of the Medical Early Response Intervention and Therapy ( MERIT ) Study , a cluster r and omized prospect i ve trial that cl aim ed to find no beneficial effect of these teams on several primary outcomes . Controversy has continued since then regarding the scientific evidence for rapid response systems . In fact , the MERIT trial was not negative ; it was inconclusive . The study team encountered an array of serious problems in execution , common in social science . For example , although the study ’s power calculation assumed a baseline rate of 30 events per 1000 admissions , the actual rate proved to be fewer than 7 events per 1000 admissions ; thus , the study was ef fect ively underpowered by 500 % . Crosscontamination abounded ; some control hospitals implemented rapid response protocol s , and several study Background Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex , progressive disease which requires a variety of quality improvement strategies . Limited information is available on the feasibility and effectiveness of interdisciplinary diabetes care teams ( IDCT ) operating on the interface between primary and specialty care . A first study hypothesis was that the implementation of an IDCT is feasible in a health care setting with limited tradition in shared care . A second hypothesis was that patients who make use of an IDCT  would have significantly better outcomes compared to non-users of the IDCT after an 18-month intervention period . A third hypothesis was that patients who used the IDCT in an Advanced quality Improvement Program ( AQIP ) would have significantly better outcomes compared to users of a Usual Quality Improvement Program ( UQIP ) . Methods This investigation comprised a two-arm cluster r and omized trial conducted in a primary care setting in Belgium . Primary care physicians ( PCPs , n = 120 ) and their patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ( n = 2495 ) were included and subjects were r and omly assigned to the intervention arms . The IDCT acted as a cornerstone to both the intervention arms , but the number , type and intensity of IDCT related interventions varied depending upon the intervention arm . Results Final registration included 67 PCPs and 1577 patients in the AQIP and 53 PCPs and 918 patients in the UQIP . 84 % of the PCPs made use of the IDCT .  The expected participation rate in patients ( 30 % ) was not attained , with 12,5 % of the patients using the IDCT .  When comparing users and non-users of the IDCT ( irrespective of the intervention arm ) and after 18 months of intervention the use of the IDCT was significantly associated with improvements in HbA1c , LDL-cholesterol , an increase in statins and anti-platelet therapy as well as the number of targets that were reached . When comparing users of the IDCT in the two intervention arms no significant differences were noted , except for anti-platelet therapy . Conclusion IDCT 's operating on the interface between primary and specialty care are associated with improved outcomes of care . More research is required on what team and program characteristics contribute to improvements in diabetes care . Trial registration NTR 1369 Background Most research publications on Chronic Care Model ( CCM ) implementation originate from organizations or countries with a well-structured primary health care system . Information about efforts made in countries with a less well-organized primary health care system is scarce . In 2003 , the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance commissioned a pilot study to explore how care for type 2 diabetes patients could be organized in a more efficient way in the Belgian healthcare setting , a setting where the organisational framework for chronic care is mainly hospital-centered . Methods Process evaluation of an action research project ( 2003–2007 ) guided by the CCM in a well-defined geographical area with 76,826 inhabitants and an 
    Output:
    