4.3 Article

Effects of the Diabetes Manual 1 : 1 structured education in primary care

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 722-731

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2008.02451.x

关键词

complex intervention; diabetes; patient education; primary care

资金

  1. Department of Health Funding Source: Medline
  2. National Institute for Health Research [CSA03/003] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To determine the effects of the Diabetes Manual on glycaemic control, diabetes-related distress and confidence to self-care of patients with Type 2 diabetes. Methods A cluster randomized, controlled trial of an intervention group vs. a 6-month delayed-intervention control group with a nested qualitative study. Participants were 48 urban general practices in the West Midlands, UK, with high population deprivation levels and 245 adults with Type 2 diabetes with a mean age of 62 years recruited pre-randomization. The Diabetes Manual is 1:1 structured education designed for delivery by practice nurses. Measured outcomes were HbA(1c), cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes-related distress measured by the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale and confidence to self-care measured by the Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 26 weeks. Results There was no significant difference in HbA(1c) between the intervention group and the control group [difference -0.08%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28, 0.11]. Diabetes-related distress scores were lower in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference -4.5, 95% CI -8.1, -1.0). Confidence to self-care Scores were 11.2 points higher (95% CI 4.4, 18.0) in the intervention group compared with the control group. The patient response rate was 18.5%. Conclusions In this population, the Diabetes Manual achieved a small improvement in patient diabetes-related distress and confidence to self-care over 26 weeks, without a change in glycaemic control. Further study is needed to optimize the intervention and characterize those for whom it is more clinically and psychologically effective to support its use in primary care.

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

4.3
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