↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Group based diabetes self-management education compared to routine treatment, waiting list control or no intervention for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
Group based diabetes self-management education compared to routine treatment, waiting list control or no intervention for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003417.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aslak Steinsbekk, Lisbeth Ø. Rygg, Monde Lisulo, Marit By Rise, Atle Fretheim

Abstract

Self-management skills are necessary for patients with type 2 diabetes. Group based diabetes self management education (DSME) is central among methods for teaching self-management. To assess effects of group-based DSME on clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial outcomes in type-2 diabetes patients. Computerised bibliographic database searches up to last week of December 2011, reference lists, other reviews and contact with experts. Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) evaluating group-based DSME for adult type-2 diabetics versus routine treatment, waiting list or no intervention. ; intervention having minimum 3 participants and one session of at least one hour, and at least 6 months follow-up. Reviewers independently extracted data, assessed study quality and graded outcomes according to standard guidacnce developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. In total 42 publications (36 studies, 7573 participants) were included. Of all the participants 4 out of 10 were male, baseline age was 62.9 years, BMI 31.1, HbA1c 7.9%, diabetes duration 10.3 years and 57.3% used medication. Most of the studies we included were at an unclear (25 studies) or high risk of bias (2 studies). Nine were at a low risk of bias. Gropu based self-management education lowered HbA1c at 6 months (-0.32%; 95% CI -0.49 to -0.15, 23 studies, 3910 participants; moderate quality evidence). Lower HbA1c with self-management intervention persisted to 5 years of follow-up: (-1.53%; 95% CI -1.88 to -1.19, two studies, 216 participants; moderate quality evidence) . Fasting blood glucose levels was lower in intervention groups at 12 months (-0.96mmol/l; 95% CI -1.59 to -0.33, 6 studies, 794 participants) and at 4 years (-0.96 mmol/l; P = 0.04, 2 studies, 693 participants; moderate quality evidence), but not at 6 months (0.60 mmol/l; P = 0.13, 7 studies, 758 participants; low quality evidence). Self-management led to higher knowledge scores compared with usual care at 6 months (SMD 0.65; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.83, 9 studies, 1128 participants) and 12 months (SMD 0.85; P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 955 participants). Self management skills also improved significantly at 6 months (SMD 0.49; P = 0.007, 5 studies, 590 participants). Self-management interventions improved empowerment/self-efficacy at 6 months compared with usual care (SMD 0.32, P< 0.00001, 5 studies, 1006 participants). . Quality of life scores across individual studies suggested very substantial variation in the size of effect across the studies. Participant satisfaction was higher with intervention at 6 and 12 months. There was a low mortality rate across the studies which was balanced between intervention and control (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.38 to 2.80). Body weight did not differ statistically at 6 months, but was lower at 12 months Body mass index, blood pressure and lipid profile at 6 and 12 months did not differ statistcally between treatment groups. Overall there is moderate quality evidence that group-based DSME interventions result in improved disease control and knowledge for people with type 2 diabetes. The main limitations of our findings are substantial variation between the results of the studies, which we could only partially explain by removing outlying results. There remains uncertainty as to the impact of self-management on quality of life.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 23%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 30 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2015.
All research outputs
#10,024,053
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,735
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,019
of 233,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#238
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.