Última actualización 12 de septiembre de 2026
Key finding
A statistically significant effect was observed on interpersonal diabetes distress, with a group x time interaction (β = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.54, -0.06).
This study evaluated the impact of a structured primary care intervention on diabetes distress in individuals with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, finding significant effects on interpersonal distress but not on overall distress scores.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Long-Term (1–5 y)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Guarda investigacion, organiza estudios y vuelve a encontrar evidencia importante rapidamente.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the impact of a structured primary care intervention on diabetes distress in individuals with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, finding significant effects on interpersonal distress but not on overall distress scores.
Understanding and addressing diabetes distress is crucial for improving the quality of life in individuals with diabetes. While the intervention showed promise in reducing interpersonal distress, the lack of overall improvement suggests that additional strategies may be needed to comprehensively manage diabetes-related emotional challenges.
The study did not demonstrate significant overall effectiveness in reducing diabetes distress. Findings may not be generalizable to all populations with type 2 diabetes. Limited sample size may affect the robustness of the results.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Anders LS, Trine T, Gitte SP, et al. Effect of a structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention on diabetes distress in individuals with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC Primary Care. 2026;27:100. doi:10.1186/s12875-026-03219-3
No significant change in overall DDS scores (β = -0.25, p = 0.052).
Significant reduction in interpersonal diabetes distress (β = -0.30, p < 0.05).
Greater reductions in abnormal HbA1c levels observed in the control group (OR = 4.25, p = 0.039).
No significant difference in abnormal HDL cholesterol levels between groups.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention and Diabetes Distress Scale score, Diabetes distress scores, HDL cholesterol, and 1 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
2
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
643
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Guarda estudios y paginas de evidencia, organiza tu Evidence Tracker y manten en un solo lugar la investigacion que te importa.
Evidencia principal
Tema de evidencia
matched_outcome
Evidencia relacionada
Tema de evidencia
Guardar evidencia
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention → Diabetes Distress Scale score
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention → Diabetes Distress Scale score
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention → Diabetes distress scores
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention → Diabetes distress scores
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention → HbA1c
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention → HbA1c
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention → HDL cholesterol
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention → HDL cholesterol
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention and Diabetes Distress Measures, Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention and Diabetes Distress Measures.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring Adipokine and Angiogenic Markers
Measures Adipokine and Angiogenic Markers as a key outcome.
All studies measuring Diabetes Distress Measures
Measures Diabetes Distress Measures as a key outcome.
All studies on Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention
Contributes to Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention evidence base.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention appears to improve diabetes distress scores.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Diabetes distress scores
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention for diabetes distress scale score.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Diabetes Distress Scale score
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention for hdl cholesterol.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
HDL cholesterol
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Structured, inter-sectoral primary care intervention for HbA1c.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Centrada en la evidencia, no en la publicidad.
Tus datos siempre están protegidos.
Se agregan nuevos estudios todos los días.
