Purpose The primary purpose of this study is to report a systematic review of evidence and gaps in the literature among well-conducted studies assessing the impact of diabetes education on hypoglycemia outcomes and secondarily reporting the impact on other included target outcomes. Methods The authors used a modified Cochrane method to systematically search and review English-language titles, abstracts, and full-text articles published in the United States between January 2001 and December 2017, with diabetes education specified as an intervention and a directly measurable outcome for hypoglycemia risk or events included. Results Fourteen quasi-experimental, experimental, and case-control studies met the inclusion criteria, with 8 articles reporting a positive impact of diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) on hypoglycemia outcomes; 2 of the 8 reported decreased hypoglycemia events, and 1 reported decreased events in both the intervention and control groups. In addition, 5 studies targeted change in reported hypoglycemia symptoms, with all 5 reporting a significant decrease. DSMES also demonstrated an impact on intermediate (knowledge gain, behavior change) and long-term (humanistic and economic/utilization) outcomes. An absence of common hypoglycemia measures and terminology and suboptimal descriptions of DSMES programs for content, delivery, duration, practitioner types, and participants were identified as gaps in the literature. Conclusions Most retained studies reported that diabetes education positively affected varied measures of hypoglycemia outcomes (number of events, reported symptoms) as well as other targeted outcomes. Diabetes education is an important intervention for reducing hypoglycemia events and/or symptoms and should be included as a component of future hypoglycemia risk mitigation studies.

BackgroundWithin the UK National Health Service (NHS), Spiritual and Pastoral Care (SPC) Services (chaplaincies) have not traditionally embraced research due to the intangible nature of their work. However, small teams like SPC can lead the way towards services across the NHS becoming patient- centred and patient-led. Using co-production principles within research can ensure it, and the resulting services, are truly patient-led.MethodsA series of interviews were conducted with service users across directorates of a large NHS mental health Trust. Their views on the quality of SPC services and desired changes were elicited. Grounded theory was used with a constant comparative approach to the interviews and analysis.ResultsInitial analysis explored views on spirituality and religion in health. Participants’ concerns included what chaplains should do, who they should see, and how soon after admission. Theoretical analysis suggested incorporating an overarching spiritual element into the bio-psycho-social model of mental healthcare.ConclusionsService users’ spirituality should not be sidelined. To service users with strong spiritual beliefs, supporting their spiritual resilience is central to their care and well-being. Failure will lead to non-holistic care unlikely to engage or motivate.

Background: A 2017 umbrella review defined the technology-enabled self-management (TES) feedback loop associated with a significant reduction in A1C. The purpose of this 2021 review was to develop a taxonomy of intervention attributes in technology-enabled interventions; review recent, high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine if the TES framework was described and if elements contribute to improved diabetes outcomes; and to identify gaps in the literature. Methods: We identified key technology attributes needed to describe the active ingredients of TES interventions. We searched multiple databases for English language reviews published between April 2017 and April 2020, focused on PwD (population) receiving diabetes care and education (intervention) using technology-enabled self-management (comparator) in a randomized controlled trial, that impact glycemic, behavioral/psychosocial, and other diabetes self-management outcomes. AMSTAR-2 guidelines were used to assess 50 studies for methodological quality including risk of bias. Results: The TES Taxonomy was developed to standardize the description of technology-enabled interventions; and ensure research uses the taxonomy for replication and evaluation. Of the 26 included reviews, most evaluated smartphones, mobile applications, texting, internet, and telehealth. Twenty-one meta-analyses with the TES feedback loop significantly lowered A1C. Conclusions: Technology-enabled diabetes self-management interventions continue to be associated with improved clinical outcomes. The ongoing rapid adoption and engagement of technology makes it important to focus on uniform measures for behavioral/psychosocial outcomes to highlight healthy coping. Using the TES Taxonomy as a standard approach to describe technology-enabled interventions will support understanding of the impact technology has on diabetes outcomes.