Background
There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision‐makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations.
Objectives
To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta‐analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care.
Search methods
We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top‐up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section.
Selection criteria
We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system‐ or provider‐targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient‐targeted strategy.
‐ System‐targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI).
‐ Provider‐targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI).
‐ Patient‐targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self‐management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient‐targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system‐targeted strategy.
Data collection and analysis
We dual‐screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta‐regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outco...
