Back

QBSafe: a Randomized Trial of a Novel Intervention to Improve Care for People Living With Type 2 Diabetes

Lipska, K. J.; Branda, M. E.; Camp, A. W.; Montosa, M.; McCoy, R.; Montori, V.; Larios, F.; Montori, V. M.

2026-02-09 endocrinology
10.64898/2026.02.06.26345768 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEffective interventions are needed to support co-creation of diabetes care plans that fit patients lives. We evaluated the QBSafe agenda-setting kit (14 conversation cards) for its impact on care fit and glycemic control when added to usual primary care. MethodsThis single-center, clinician-level cluster-randomized, open-label trial was conducted at a federally qualified health center in New Haven, Connecticut (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05553912). Clinicians and their patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c >8% were randomized 1:1 to usual care with or without QBSafe cards. In the intervention arm, patients selected up to 3 cards highlighting concerns about life with diabetes prior to their visit. Primary outcomes were change at 6 months in care fit (Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, IIRS) and HbA1c, analyzed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were treatment burden (Treatment Burden Questionnaire, TBQ) and diabetes distress (Diabetes Distress Scale, DDS), and satisfaction with visits. ResultsBetween February 2023 and July 2024, 143 participants (mean age 56 years; 61% female; 73% Hispanic; mean HbA1c 10%) were enrolled: 74 received usual care with QBSafe, 69 usual care alone. At 6 months, there were no significant between-arm differences in changes in IIRS (-3.9 [95% CI -10.4, 2.6]), HbA1c (-0.2% [95% CI -0.9, 0.5]), TBQ (1.0 [95% CI -16.6, 18.6]), or DDS (-0.1 [95% CI -0.4, 0.2]). Clinicians reported greater satisfaction when using QBSafe. Patient satisfaction was high and did not differ across arms. ConclusionsQBSafe cards improved clinician satisfaction but did not improve care fit or glycemic control. Future tools should focus on helping clinicians respond effectively to patient-identified challenges.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.2%
2
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.5%
3
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.4%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.4%
6
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 37%
4.0%
8
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.6%
9
Diabetes Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
11
Diabetologia
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
12
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
13
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
14
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
15
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.1%
16
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
17
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
18
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
20
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
21
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
22
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
23
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Genetics in Medicine Open
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
26
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
29
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.7%