Self-Management Education for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

Bibliographic Data

ID23378686
AuthorsSusan L Norris (0000-0002-0042-2452, Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia), Joseph Lau (0009-0002-1623-6635, Center for Clinical Evidence Synthesis, Division of Clinical Care Research, New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts), S J Smith (0000-0002-1248-5477, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Christopher H Schmid (0000-0002-0855-5313, Biostatistics Research Center, Division of Clinical Care Research, New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts), Michael M Engelgau (Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia)
Year2002
Volume25
Issue7
Pages1159-1171
Publication date2002-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueDiabetes Care (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0149-5992 • E-ISSN: 1935-5548
PublisherAmerican Diabetes Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2337/diacare.25.7.1159
PMID12087014
OpenAlexW2092783195
LanguageEN
Citations received86
References cited71

OBJECTIVE—To evaluate the efficacy of self-management education on GHb in adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We searched for English language trials in Medline (1980–1999), Cinahl (1982–1999), and the Educational Resources Information Center database (ERIC) (1980–1999), and we manually searched review articles, journals with highest topic relevance, and reference lists of included articles. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that were published in the English language, tested the effect of self-management education on adults with type 2 diabetes, and reported extractable data on the effect of treatment on GHb. A total of 31 studies of 463 initially identified articles met selection criteria. We computed net change in GHb, stratified by follow-up interval, tested for trial heterogeneity, and calculated pooled effects sizes using random effects models. We examined the effect of baseline GHb, follow-up interval, and intervention characteristics on GHb. RESULTS—On average, the intervention decreased GHb by 0.76% (95% CI 0.34–1.18) more than the control group at immediate follow-up; by 0.26% (0.21% increase - 0.73% decrease) at 1–3 months of follow-up; and by 0.26% (0.05–0.48) at ≥4 months of follow-up. GHb decreased more with additional contact time between participant and educator; a decrease of 1% was noted for every additional 23.6 h (13.3–105.4) of contact. CONCLUSIONS—Self-management education improves GHb levels at immediate follow-up, and increased contact time increases the effect. The benefit declines 1–3 months after the intervention ceases, however, suggesting that learned behaviors change over time. Further research is needed to develop interventions effective in maintaining long-term glycemic control.

CINAHL · Clinical trial · Confidence interval · Diabetes mellitus · MEDLINE · Physical therapy · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Randomized controlled trial · Type 2 diabetes · Diabetes Management and Education · Diabetes Management and Research · Endocrinology · Internal Medicine · Medicine · Nursing care and research

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access