Introduction Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the commonest chronic diseases worldwide. Self-Management Education (SME) is regarded as a critical element of treatment for all people with diabetes, as well as those at risk of developing the condition. While a great variety of diabetes self-management education (DSME) interventions are available in high-income countries, limited information exists on educational programs for the prevention and management of diabetes complications in Africa. This study, therefore, aimed at synthesizing information in the literature to describe the state of the science of DSME interventions in the WHO African Region. Materials and methods The study is a scoping review, which followed the standard PRISMA guidelines for conducting and reporting scoping reviews. A systematic keyword and subject headings searches were conducted on six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) to identify relevant English language publications on DSME from 2000 through 2020. Titles and abstracts of the search results were screened to select eligible papers for full text reading. All eligible papers were retrieved and full text screening was done by three independent reviewers to select studies for inclusion in the final analysis. Results Nineteen studies were included in the review. The interventions identified were individually oriented, group-based, individually oriented & group-based, and information technology-based DSME programs. Outcomes of the interventions were mixed. While the majority yielded significant positive results on HbA1c, diabetes knowledge, blood pressure, blood sugar and foot care practices; few demonstrated positive outcomes on self-efficacy, BMI, physical activity; self-monitoring of blood glucose, medication adherence, smoking and alcohol consumption. Conclusions The limited studies available indicate that DSME interventions in the WHO African Region have mixed effects on patient behaviors and health outcomes. That notwithstanding, the majority of the interventions demonstrated statistically significant positive effects on HbA1c, the main outcome measure in most DSME intervention studies.

No abstract

Background. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) accounts for approximately 95% of all diabetes cases, making the disease a global public health concern. The increasing prevalence of T2DM has highlighted the importance of evidence-based guidelines for effective prevention, management, and treatment. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) can produce positive effects on patient behaviors and health status. Study objective. We synthesized findings from the existing studies to find out whether or not the impact of DSME on patient health behaviors and outcomes differ by the different models of diabetes care. That is, we determined whether there are differences in DSME outcomes when patient’s care provider is a general practitioner, a specialist, a nurse, or a combination of these health professionals. Methods. Searches were made of six electronic databases to identify relevant English language publications on DSME from 2000 through 2019. Titles and abstracts of the search results were screened to select eligible papers for full-text screening. All eligible papers were retrieved, and full-text screening was done by three independent reviewers to select studies for inclusion in the final analysis. Twenty-one studies were included in the final analysis. The main outcome measures assessed were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), diet, and physical activity. Results. The majority of the patients with diabetes were seen by primary care physicians. In general, the studies reported significant improvements in patient health behaviors and outcomes. Some differences in outcomes between the different models of care were observed. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that the effects of DSME on patients’ health behaviors and outcomes could differ by the different models of diabetes care. However, considering the limited sample of publications reviewed, and because none of the reviewed studies directly measured the impact of the DSME program on patient behaviors and outcomes, significant conclusions could not be reached.