6. References
In Chapter 1 “Introduction: The Diabetes Problem in Europe”
[1] International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 8th edn. Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation, 2017. www.diabetesatlas.org
[2] Barnes et al. Little time for diabetes management in the primary care setting. Diabetes Educ. 2004; 30(1): 126–35.
[3] Chen et al. Primary care visit duration and quality: does good care take longer? Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(20): 1866–72.
[4] Pablos-Velasco et al. Current level of glycaemic control and its associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes across Europe: data from the PANORAMA study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014; 80(1): 47–56.
[5] Stone MA et al Diabetes Care. 2013 Sep; 36(9):2628-38. doi: 10.2337/dc12-1759. Epub 2013 Apr 29.
[6] Rao et al. Diabetes mellitus, fasting glucose, and risk of cause-specific death. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(9): 829–41.
In Chapter 2 “Potential Reasons: Clinical Inertia in Chronic Diseases”
[7] O'Connor et al. Clinical Inertia and Outpatient Medical Errors. In: Henriksen K et al., editors. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation (Volume 2: Concepts and Methodology). Rockville (MD), USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) 2005; pp. 293–308.
In Chapter 3 “Addressing the Problem: iPDM”
[8] Ceriello et al. Diabetes as a case study of chronic disease management with a personalized approach: the role of a structured feedback loop. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012 Oct; 98(1): 5–10
In Chapter 4 “iPDM at Work: The PDM Pro Value Study Program”
[9] Kulzer et al. Integrated personalized diabetes management improves glycemic control in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: Results of the PDM-ProValue study program. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018; 144: 200–12.
Thank you for your attention!
The iPDM-GO project is funded by the EIT Health.
Digital Learning Content Creation by MacSchneider, 2019.
