Self-management in patients with type 2 diabetes: Group-based versus individual education. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trails

5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Factors associated with attendance at a pharmacist-led group diabetes self-management education class and impact on health outcomes

Background

Group education has demonstrated benefits among people with diabetes, including reduced A1C and improved self-monitoring practices. Despite this, attendance rates are low for a variety of reasons, including lack of understanding of potential benefits among patients.

Objectives

The pharmacist-led diabetes self-management education program at a community hospital has low attendance. This project assesses characteristics associated with attendance and compares outcomes among attendees and non-attendees.

Methods

Retrospective data was collected between July 2022 and December 2023. Variables included: age, sex, class attendance, pre- and ≥ 90-day post-class A1C, pre- and post-class BMI, attending pharmacist-led clinic prior to scheduled class, social determinants of health screening survey responses, and diagnosis of depression or anxiety.

Results

103 patients were identified. 53 % attended at least one class out of a series of four. Attendance at the pharmacist-led diabetes clinic (70 % among attendees versus 30 % among non-attendees, p < 0.001) was associated with attendance. Age, gender, concurrent mental health diagnoses (depression and anxiety), and SDOH related needs were not associated with attendance. Baseline A1C was similar for attendees and non-attendees (9.6 vs. 9.7 %, respectively). Post-class A1C was 7.4 % for attendees of at least one class and 8 % for non-attendees. Patients who attended all four classes achieved a mean A1C <7 %.

Discussion

There are many factors that lead to lack of engagement with group education for diabetes. Referral to group education by a pharmacist who has established rapport with the patient and can speak to specific details about benefits of the classes may improve attendance at diabetes group education.

Therapeutic patient education and treatment intensification of diabetes and hypertension in subjects with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: a longitudinal study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to prospectively evaluate whether individual and group Therapeutic Patient Education (TPE) can reduce the need to intensify treatment of diabetes and hypertension in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients.

METHODS

A total of 937 patients were recruited and followed-up for 42.7 ± 21.5 months. TPE was a structured comprehensive education delivered by trained nurses: 322 patients received individual TPE (ITPE), 291 underwent group TPE (GTPE), and 324 were in Usual Care (UC). The primary endpoints were intensification of diabetes treatment and intensification of hypertension treatment.

RESULTS

The rate of diabetes treatment intensification was 40.1% in patients receiving ITPE, 47.8% in patients undergoing GTPE, and 64.2% in patients in UC (p < 0.001). The rate of hypertension treatment intensification was 24.2% in patients following ITPE, 31.3% in patients receiving GTPE, and 41.0% in patients in UC (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that both ITPE and GTPE were associated with reduced intensification of diabetes (ITPE: HR:0.51; 95% IC:0.40-0.64; p < 0.001 - GTPE: HR:0.46; 95% IC:0.44-0.70; p < 0.001) and hypertension medication (ITPE: HR:0.45; 95% IC:0.34-0.61; p < 0.001 - GTPE: HR:0.49; 95% IC:0.38-0.65; p < 0.001). The association was independent of age, sex, BMI, HbA1c, and presence of hypertension at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

TPE, delivered as both individual and group sessions, represents an effective tool to reduce the need to intensify treatment of both diabetes and hypertension. Therefore, it can ensure better control of diabetes and hypertension with fewer medications. This could reduce adverse effects and costs and improve quality of life and medication taking in patients with type 2 diabetes.

5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

A Systematic Review of Patient Education Strategies for Oncology Patients in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

INTRODUCTION

Patient education can facilitate early cancer diagnosis, enhance treatment adherence, and improve outcomes. While there is increasing cancer burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is little research to inform successful patient education in these regions. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on oncology education and evaluation strategies in LMICs, identifies best practices, and highlights areas which require further investigation.

METHODS

The review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines and an a priori protocol. Four databases (Ovid Medline, Cochrane Libraries, Embase, and Cabi) were searched in December 2021. Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion. Using a coded data extraction form, information was collected about the study site, intervention characteristics, and evaluation methods.

RESULTS

Of the 2047 articles generated in the search, 77 met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-four countries were represented; only 6 studies (8%) were in low-income countries. The most common education methods included technology-based interventions (31, 40%) and visual pamphlets or posters (20, 26%). More than one education method was used in 57 (74%) studies. Nurses were the most frequent educators (25, 33%). An evaluation was included in 74 (96%) studies, though only 41 (55%) studies used a validated tool. Patient knowledge was the most common measured outcome in 35 (47%) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited empiric research on oncology patient education in LMICs. The available data show heterogeneity in education approaches and gaps in evaluation. Further research to determine successful patient education and evaluation strategies is urgently needed to improve treatment cancer outcomes in LMICs.