4.5 Article

A preliminary study on the effects of the Peer-Led Self-Management (PLSM) program on self-efficacy, self-management, and physiological measures in older adults with diabetes: A block randomized controlled trial

期刊

GERIATRIC NURSING
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 386-396

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2021.01.011

关键词

Self-management; Peer-led; HbA1c; Older adults; Diabetes; Self-efficacy

资金

  1. St. Martin De Porres Hospital research program [P1715]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrated the positive effects of the peer-led self-management program on older adults with diabetes, including improved self-efficacy, self-management, and physiological measures. The experimental group showed significantly lower body weight and BMI measures, as well as better HbA1c, total cholesterol, and triglycerides levels compared to the control group. The preliminary findings suggest the potential benefits and feasibility of the PLSM program.
This study explored the effects and feasibility of the peer-led self-management (PLSM) program for older adults with diabetes. Twenty-eight participants from 10 communities in southern Taiwan were randomly allocated to experimental and control groups. Those in the experimental group were enrolled in a 4-week PLSM program; those in the control group received a self-management manual and continued their usual clinical care. Improvement in outcomes (self-efficacy, self-management, physiological measures) over time in both groups were evaluated. After PLSM intervention, self-efficacy and self-management had improved; body weight and body mass index measures of the experimental group at post-test 1 and post-test 2 were significantly lower than those of the control group (p < .001); HbA1c, total cholesterol, and triglycerides at post-test 2 were also significantly better (p < .001; p = .03; p = .02). We discuss preliminary benefits and feasibility of the PLSM program. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据