Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured group education programme on biomedical, psychosocial, and lifestyle measures in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Design Multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care with randomisation at practice level. Setting 207 general practices in 13 primary care sites in the United Kingdom. Participants 824 adults (55% men, mean age 59.5 years). Intervention A structured group education programme for six hours delivered in the community by two trained healthcare professional educators compared with usual care. Main outcome measures Haemoglobin A 1c levels, blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, smoking status, physical activity, quality of life, beliefs about illness, depression, and emotional impact of diabetes at baseline and up to 12 months. Main results Haemoglobin A 1c levels at 12 months had decreased by 1.49% in the intervention group compared with 1.21% in the control group. After adjusting for baseline and cluster, the difference was not significant: 0.05% (95% confidence interval −0.10% to 0.20%). The intervention group showed a greater weight loss: −2.98 kg (95% confidence interval −3.54 to −2.41) compared with 1.86 kg (−2.44 to −1.28), P=0.027 at 12 months. The odds of not smoking were 3.56 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 11.45), P=0.033 higher in the intervention group at 12 months. The intervention group showed significantly greater changes in illness belief scores (P=0.001); directions of change were positive indicating greater understanding of diabetes. The intervention group had a lower depression score at 12 months: mean difference was −0.50 (95% confidence interval −0.96 to −0.04); P=0.032. A positive association was found between change in perceived personal responsibility and weight loss at 12 months (β=0.12; P=0.008). Conclusion A structured group education programme for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes resulted in greater improvements in weight loss and smoking cessation and positive improvements in beliefs about illness but no difference in haemoglobin A 1c levels up to 12 months after diagnosis. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17844016.
A total of 148 health and social care practitioners were trained in skills to support behaviour change: creating opportunities to discuss health behaviours, using open discovery questions, listening, reflecting and goal-setting. At three time points post-training, use of the skills was evaluated and compared with use of skills by untrained practitioners. Trained practitioners demonstrated significantly greater use of these client-centred skills to support behaviour change compared to their untrained peers up to one year post-training. Because it uses existing services to deliver support for behaviour change, this training intervention has the potential to improve public health at relatively low cost.
OBJECTIVE -To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral interventions for adolescents with type 1 diabetes based on a systematic review of the literature.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -The literature was identified by searching 11 electronic databases, hand-searching 3 journals from their start dates, and contacting individual researchers. Only articles that reported evaluations of behavioral (including educational and psychosocial) interventions for adolescents (age range 9-21 years) with type 1 diabetes that included a control group were included in the present review. Data summarizing the key features of the interventions and their effects were extracted from each article. Where possible, effect sizes for the randomized control trials (RCTs) were calculated.RESULTS -The search process identified 64 reports of empirical studies. Of these, 35 studies included a control group, and 24 were RCTs. Effect sizes could be calculated for 18 interventions. The overall mean effect size calculated across all outcomes was 0.33 (median 0.21), indicating that these interventions have a small-to medium-sized beneficial effect on diabetes management. Interventions that were theoretically based were significantly more effective than those that were not (P Ͻ 0.05, 1-tailed).CONCLUSIONS -Research to date indicates that these interventions are moderately effective. Several methodological weaknesses to be avoided in future studies are noted. It is also recommended that investigators use the reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to guide the design of future studies, which should result in more disseminable interventions. RE-AIM assesses the intervention' s reach, or percent or representativeness of patients willing to participate; efficacy across a range of outcomes; adoption, or the percent and representativeness of settings willing to implement the intervention; implementation, or the consistency of the delivery of the intervention as intended; and maintenance, or the extent to which delivery of the intervention becomes a routine part of health care in the medical setting. Diabetes R e v i e w s / C o m m e n t a r i e s / P o s i t i o n S t a t e m e n t sDIABETES CARE, VOLUME 23, NUMBER 9, SEPTEMBER 2000 1417Hampson and Associates (e.g., psychosocial, metabolic, self-management, and knowledge) was examined. Behavioral interventions aim primarily to change psychosocial and self-management outcomes, which are seen as intervening variables that contribute to metabolic outcomes (23,24). Therefore, we examined whether effects were larger for intervening (psychosocial, self-management, and knowledge) variables than for metabolic outcomes. We also used meta-analysis to test whether interventions based on theoretical principles were more effective than those that were not theoretically based (25).Finally, those interventions that yielded the largest effect sizes were evaluated in terms of the reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework (26). RE-AIM assesses the in...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.