Increasing diabetes self-management education in community settingsA systematic review

Norris, Susan L.; Nichols, Phyllis; Caspersen, Carl J.; Glasgow, Russell E.; Engelgau, Michael M.; Jack, Leonard; Snyder, Susan; Carande-Kulis, Vilma G; Isham, George; Garfield, Sanford A.; Briss, Peter A.; McCulloch, David K.

doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(02)00424-5

Cited by 280 publications

(216 citation statements)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

200

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In eight reviews, experts in the field were contacted to identify additional publications [10,11,13,15,[18][19][20]25]. Reference tracking was performed in 11 reviews [10,11,13,15,16,[18][19][20][21][22]24].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine reviews included qualitative data synthesis within categories [13,[19][20][21][22][24][25][26][27] (Table 1). In some reviews [10,11,18] the allocation into categories did not meet the type of intervention [32,34,35].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If quantitative reviews were aimed at exploring multiple outcome measures, multiple meta-analyses were performed [10,11,13,16,[18][19][20]. If quantitative analysis was used according to the effect of active components, regression analysis or subgroup analysis was conducted [9,11,13,15,16,19].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Meta-analysis does not allow appraisal of complex interventions in diabetes and hypertension self-management: a methodological review

Lenz¹,

Steckelberg²,

Richter

et al. 2007

Diabetologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Common methodologies used in systematic reviews do not allow adequate appraisal of complex interventions. The aim of the present study was to describe and critically appraise current methods of systematic reviews on complex interventions, using diabetes and hypertension patient education as examples. PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched. Systematic reviews focusing on diabetes or hypertension patient education were included. Authors were contacted. Two investigators independently evaluated the reviews. The available evidence of three patient education programmes of diabetes and hypertension self-management implemented in Germany was used as a reference. We included 14 reviews; 12 reviews mentioned that the included education programmes were multidimensional. Reviews on comparable topics identified different publications of the same programme. Identical programmes were classified differently within and between reviews.Education programmes were dissected to analyse effects of single components. Different components of identical programmes were used. Interdependencies between components were not explored. Six reviews performed metaanalysis across programmes with heterogeneous educational or organisational approaches. The complexity of efficacy measures was disregarded: e.g. HbA 1c was used as an isolated outcome variable without considering treatment goals, effects on hypoglycaemia, body weight or quality of life. Our results indicate that methods of current systematic reviews are not fully equipped to appraise patient education and self-management programmes. Since these are complex and heterogeneous interventions, consideration of aggregated evidence is necessary.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Meta-analysis does not allow appraisal of complex interventions in diabetes and hypertension self-management: a methodological review

Lenz¹,

Steckelberg²,

Richter

et al. 2007

Diabetologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our population, and others, the agreement between self-report and medical record may be explained by high awareness of diabetes because of its high prevalence (32) and educational efforts to improve awareness. (33) Coronary artery intervention including coronary angioplasty or CABG surgery is a high-risk procedure that is not likely to be misinterpreted by the patient. We found that the agreement between self-report and the medical record was substantial for coronary artery intervention with a kappa statistic of 0.79.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement of self-reported comorbid conditions with medical and physician reports varied by disease among end-stage renal disease patients

Merkin

Cavanaugh

Longenecker

et al. 2007

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare self-report of eight diseases with review of medical records and physician reports. Study Design and Setting:In a cohort of 965 incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients (CHOICE study), data on existing medical conditions were obtained from medical record abstraction, physician report (CMS Form 2728), and self-report in a baseline questionnaire. We evaluated agreement with kappa statistics and sensitivity of self-report. Regression models were used to examine characteristics associated with agreement. Results:The results showed excellent or substantial agreement between self-report and the medical record for diabetes (Kappa statistic (k)=0.93) and coronary artery intervention (k=0.79) and poor agreement for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (k=0.20). Physician-reported prevalence for all diseases was equal or lower than that by self-report. Male patients were more likely to inaccurately report hypertension. Compared to White patients, African American patients were more likely to inaccurately report cardiovascular diseases. Conclusion:In ESRD patients, self-report agreement with the medical record varies with the specific disease. Awareness of diseases of the cardiovascular system appears to be low. African American and male ESRD patients are at risk of low awareness of disease and educational interventions are needed in this high-risk population.

show abstract

“…[12][13][14][15] Ideally, community partners take ownership of health promotion activities and participate in recruitment. There are opportunities for system change and health care improvement at the population level when community stakeholders are engaged in the DSME process.…”

Section: Standard 8 Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Accreditation Standards as a Framework to Evaluate and Improve a Community-Based Diabetes Self-Management Education Program

White

Manning

Brawer

et al. 2014

Population Health Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing diabetes self-management education in community settingsA systematic review

Cited by 280 publications

References 106 publications

Meta-analysis does not allow appraisal of complex interventions in diabetes and hypertension self-management: a methodological review

Meta-analysis does not allow appraisal of complex interventions in diabetes and hypertension self-management: a methodological review

Agreement of self-reported comorbid conditions with medical and physician reports varied by disease among end-stage renal disease patients

Using Accreditation Standards as a Framework to Evaluate and Improve a Community-Based Diabetes Self-Management Education Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About