Effectiveness of Self-Help Group Program for the Management of Type-2 Diabetes Patients in Rural Thailand

Somrongtho, Ratana; Prabsangob, Kantapong; Kumar, Ramesh; Anwar, Fareeha

doi:10.3923/pjn.2019.141.145

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the remaining 42 full-text studies retrieved, 21 were excluded because they did not present data of interest or were repeated articles. Ultimately, 21 articles [ 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ] were included for systematic review. Because the data homogeneity of 12 studies was not high, these were included in a qualitative analysis, and a meta-analysis was conducted for the other nine articles.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The assessment tools all consider the improvement of scale score as an effective indicator. In all, 14 studies reported the effect of HL intervention on the HL level of patients with diabetes, of which 11 studies [ 3 , 7 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 24 , 25 ] showed that the HL level of participants improved after the educational intervention. Three studies [ 8 , 12 , 20 ] found that there were no statistically significant differences in HL scores.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Health Literacy Intervention on Patients with Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ran

Chen

Kui

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relevant studies published between January 2010 and June 2021 were identified through relevant databases, including the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database of Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase, in order to assess the effect of health literacy (HL) intervention on patients with diabetes. A total of 21 articles were eligible. The results showed that: (1) this review involved different HL assessment tools, most of which were self-designed scales and assessment tools focused on measuring functional HL. (2) The differences in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.94, −0.62) and medication adherence (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.85, 95% CI: 0.19, 3.52) between the HL intervention group and the usual care group were statistically significant. There was no significant improvement in systolic blood pressure (SMD = −0.05, 95% CI: −0.34, 0.25). Furthermore, this review reported that self-efficacy (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.04) was increased, and the level of HL was improved. In the assessments of risk of bias, 90% of the studies were classified as medium. The quality of the evidence of medication adherence was very low, and the reliability of the conclusions was not enough to confirm the effect of HL.

show abstract