The Impact of Patient-Centered versus Didactic Education Programs in Chronic Patients by Severity: The Case of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Abstract

Background: Education leads to better health-related decisions and protective behaviors, being especially important for patients with chronic conditions. Self-management education programs have been shown to be beneficial for patients with different chronic conditions and to have a higher impact on health outcomes than does didactic education. Objective: To investigate improvements in glycemic control (measured by glycated hemoglobin A1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: Our comparative trial involved one group of patients receiving patient-centered education and another receiving didactic education. We dealt with selection bias issues, estimated the different impact of both programs, and validated our analysis using quantile regression techniques. Results: We found evidence of better mean glycemic control in patients receiving the patientcentered program, which engaged better patients. Nevertheless, that differential impact is nonmonotonic. Patients initially at the healthy range at the patient-centered program maintained their condition better. Patients close to, but not within, the healthy range benefited equally from attending either program. Patients with very high glycemic level benefited significantly more from attending the patient-centered program. Finally, patients with the worst initial glycemic control (far from the healthy range) improved equally their diabetic condition, regardless of which program they attended. Conclusions: Different patients are sensitive to different categories of education programs. The optimal, cost-effective design of preventative programs for patients with chronic conditions needs to account for the different impact in different "patient categories." This implies stratifying patients and providing the appropriate preventative education program, or looking for alternative policy implementations for unresponsive patients who have the most severe condition and are the most costly.

Implementing a tailored education programme: renal transplant recipients’ experiences

“…The participants expressed an overall positive attitude towards the new education programme, reflecting satisfaction with a programme adjusted to match personal needs, lifestyle and home context. This is in line with reports demonstrating patient‐centered education to influence positively on patients’ satisfaction and self‐management (Epstein et al ; Jutterström et al ; Windrum et al ).…”

“…It is based on patients’ preferences, experienced needs and values in decisions about care and treatment. Previous research has demonstrated patient‐centred education to influence positively on patients’ knowledge and self‐management (Epstein et al ; Jutterström et al ; Windrum et al ).…”

Impact of patient‐centred diabetes self‐management education targeting people with type 2 diabetes: an integrative review

“…In six reports , a collaborative patient–provider relationship, linking educational content to the needs of participants, was described as the primary mechanism of the programme. Setting personal goals and developing an action plan were key mechanisms in three reports and dialogue and a non‐didactic approach were mentioned as essential values in two reports .…”

Evaluation of first-person storytelling on changing health-related attitudes, knowledge, behaviors, and outcomes: A scoping review

“…The didactic approach uses the language of science, statistics, and probabilities to appeal to a person's logic and reason to persuade them to adopt new behaviors, attitudes, or knowledge. [2] While didactic resources are effective with many patient groups [3][4][5][6][7] and learning situations, [4][5][6] and can change health outcomes, [7,8] they also face some challenges. Specifically, didactic education is predominantly factual in nature, may be less effective with patients with low health literacy, and may not address fears or other emotional factors necessary to change behavior.…”