BackgroundType 2 diabetes presents a major morbidity and mortality burden in the United States. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is an intervention associated with improved hemoglobin A1c(HbA1c) and quality of life(QOL), and is recommended for all individuals with type 2 diabetes. African-Americans have disproportionate type 2 diabetes morbidity and mortality, yet no prior meta-analyses have examined DSME outcomes exclusively in this population. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the impact of DSME on HbA1c and QOL in African-Americans compared to usual care.MethodsRandomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized trials, and quasi-experimental interventions were included. 352 citations were retrieved; 279 abstracts were reviewed, and 44 full-text articles were reviewed. Fourteen studies were eligible for systematic review and 8 for HbA1c meta-analysis; QOL measures were too heterogeneous to pool. Heterogeneity of HbA1c findings was assessed with Cochran’s Q and I2.ResultsHbA1c weighted mean difference between intervention and usual care participants was not significant: − 0.08%[− 0.40–0.23];χ2 = 84.79 (p < .001), I2 = 92%, (n = 1630). Four of five studies measuring QOL reported significant improvements for intervention participants.ConclusionsMeta-analysis results showed non-significant effect of DSME on HbA1c in African-Americans. QOL did show improvement and is an important DSME outcome to measure in future trials. Further research is needed to understand effectiveness of DSME on HbA1c in this population.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42017057282.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3186-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Improving glycemic control in older African Americans with diabetes and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is important as the population ages and becomes more racially diverse. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Recruitment from primary care practices of an urban academic medical center. Community-based treatment delivery. PARTICIPANTS: Older African Americans with MCI, low medication adherence, and poor glycemic control (N = 101). INTERVENTIONS: Occupational therapy (OT) behavioral intervention and diabetes self-management education. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a reduction in hemoglobin A1c level of at least 0.5% at 6 months, with maintenance effects assessed at 12 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, 25 of 41 (61.0%) OT participants and 22 of 46 (48.2%) diabetes self-management education participants had a reduction in hemoglobin A1c level of at least 0.5%. The model-estimated rates were 58% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 45%-75%) and 48% (95% CI = 36%-64%), respectively (relative risk [RR] = 1.21; 95% CI = 0.84-1.75; P = .31). At 12 months, the respective rates were 21 of 39 (53.8%) OT participants and 24 of 49 (49.0%) diabetes self-management education participants. The model-estimated rates were 50% (95% CI = 37%-68%) and 48% (95% CI = 36%-64%), respectively (RR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.70-1.57; P = .81). CONCLUSION: Both interventions improved glycemic control in older African Americans with MCI and poor glycemic control. This result reinforces the American Diabetes Associationʼs recommendation to assess cognition in older persons with diabetes and demonstrates the potential to improve glycemic control in this high-risk population.

BackgroundData are limited regarding how to effectively and efficiently identify patient priorities for research or clinical care. Our goal was to compare the comprehensiveness and efficiency of group concept mapping (GCM), a group participatory method, to interviews for identifying patient goals when seeking care.MethodsWe engaged patients with moderately- to poorly-controlled diabetes mellitus in either GCM or an individual interview. The primary outcome was the comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming (the first stage of GCM) as compared to interviews for eliciting patient-important outcomes (PIOs) related to seeking care. Secondary outcomes included 1) comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming and interviews compared to a master list of PIOs and 2) efficiency of GCM brainstorming, the entire GCM process and interviews.ResultsWe engaged 89 interview participants and 52 GCM participants (across 3 iterations of GCM) to identify outcomes most important to patients when making decisions related to diabetes management. We identified 26 PIOs in interviews, 33 PIOs in the first GCM brainstorming session, and 38 PIOs across all three GCM brainstorming sessions. The initial GCM brainstorming session identified 77% (20/26) of interview PIOs, and all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions combined identified 88% (23/26). When comparing GCM brainstorming and interviews to the master list of PIOs, the initial GCM brainstorming sessions identified 80% (33/41), all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions identified 93% (38/41) and interviews identified 63% (26/41) of all PIOs. Compared to interviews, GCM brainstorming required less research team time, more patient time, and had a lowest cost. The entire GCM process still required less research team time than interviews, though required more patient time and had a higher cost than interviews.ConclusionsGCM brainstorming is a powerful tool for effectively and efficiently identifying PIOs in certain scenarios, though it does not provide the breadth and depth of individual interviews or the higher level conceptual organization of the complete process of GCM. Selection of the optimal method for patient engagement should include consideration of multiple factors including depth of patient input desired, research team expertise, resources, and the population to be engaged.Trial registrationRegistered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02792777. Registration information submitted 6/2/2016, with the registration first posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov website 6/8/2016. Data collection began on 4/29/2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0656-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Medication-related problems in older Blacks with diabetes mellitus (DM) are not well established. Objectives: To describe the frequency of medication-related problems in older Blacks with DM presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods: The study was a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial evaluating Blacks aged ≥60 years of age presenting to the ED. Polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use, and anticholinergic score were evaluated. Results: Of 168 patients (median age = 68, range 60–92), most ( n = 164, 98%) were taking ≥5 medications, and 67 (39.9%) were taking a PIM. A majority ( n = 124, 74%) were taking a medication with an anticholinergic score ≥1. Number of medications was correlated with number of PIMs ( r = .22, p = .004) and anticholinergic score ( r = .50, p < .001). Conclusion: Polypharmacy and PIM use was common in older Blacks with DM.