↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The SWEET SPOTS study: a real-world interpretation of the 2012 American Diabetes Association Position Statement regarding individualized A1C targets

Overview of attention for article published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
The SWEET SPOTS study: a real-world interpretation of the 2012 American Diabetes Association Position Statement regarding individualized A1C targets
Published in
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/rmhp.s116800
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nella Bieszk, Michael Grabner, Wenhui Wei, Nicole Bonine, Judith Stephenson

Abstract

To evaluate awareness of the 2012 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Position Statement among physicians and assess its effects on patient-centered glycated hemoglobin (A1C) goals in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The Summarizing Real-World Individualized TrEatmEnT GoalS and Potential SuppOrT Systems in Type 2 Diabetes (SWEET SPOTS) study used the HealthCore claims database to identify T2D patients, stratified by risk, and their treating physicians to assess primary care physician and endocrinologist awareness of the 2012 ADA Position Statement. Physicians completed online surveys on A1C targets before and after receiving an educational intervention to review the position statement. Of 125 responding physicians (mean age 50.3 years, 12.8% endocrinologists) who were linked to 125 patient profiles (mean age 56.9 years, 42% female, mean A1C 7.2%), 92% were at least somewhat aware of the position statement prior to the intervention and 59% believed that the statement would impact how they set A1C targets. The educational intervention resulted in mostly less stringent goal setting for both lower and higher risk patients, but changes were not significant. The proportion of physician-assigned A1C targets within ADA-recommended ranges increased from 56% to 66% post-intervention (P<0.0001). Physicians treating T2D are aware of the 2012 ADA Position Statement and believe that it may influence treatment goals. While patient-specific A1C targets were not significantly impacted, physicians indicated that they would make targets more or less stringent for lower and higher risk patients, respectively, across their practice. Further research into optimizing physician education regarding individualized A1C targets is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Psychology 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,535,896
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#464
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,988
of 312,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.