Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28031750›Full record

ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2016

Diabetes self-management education after pre-selection of patients: design of a randomised controlled trial.

Rimke C Vos, Nathalie W D Eikelenboom, Maarten Klomp, Rebecca K Stellato, Guy E H M Rutten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rimke C VosDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Huispostnr. STR.6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nathalie W D EikelenboomDOH Care Group, Tilburgseweg-West 100, P.O.Box 7140, 5652 NP Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Maarten KlompDOH Care Group, Tilburgseweg-West 100, P.O.Box 7140, 5652 NP Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Rebecca K StellatoDepartment of Biostatistics and Research Support, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Huispostnr. STR.6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Guy E H M RuttenDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Huispostnr. STR.6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany self-management programs have been developed so far. Their effectiveness varies. The program 'Beyond Good Intentions' (BGI) is based on proactive coping and has proven to be (cost-) effective in achieving reductions in BMI and blood pressure in screen-detected type 2 diabetes patients up until nine months follow-up. However, its long-term effectiveness in people already known with diabetes is lacking. In addition, its (cost-) effectiveness might increase if people who are likely not to be benefit from the program are excluded in a valid way. Therefore it was aimed to investigate the long-term effects of the educational program BGI on cardiovascular risk, quality of life and diabetes self-management behaviour in a pre-selected group of patients known with type 2 diabetes up to 5 years.

methodsRandomised controlled trial with 2.5 year follow-up. Adults (≤75 years) with a type 2 diabetes duration between 3 months and 5 years will be included. With the use of a self-management screening tool (SeMaS) their potential barriers of self-management due to depression and/or anxiety will be determined. Based on the results of the SeMaS selection patients will be randomised (1:1) to the BGI-group (n = 53) or the control-group (n = 53). In addition to receiving usual care, patients in the BGI-group will follow the 12-week theory-based self-management program and a booster session a few months thereafter. The control-group will receive care as usual. The primary outcome is change in Body Mass Index after 2.5 years follow-up. Secondary outcomes are HbA1c, lipid profile and systolic blood pressure, (diabetes) quality of life, level of physical activity, dietary intake and medication adherence and proactive coping. Cost-effectiveness will be based on total use of health care resources during the entire study period. Difference between groups in change over time will be analysed according to intention-to-treat analysis.

conclusionsBy differentiating between patients who will and those who are likely not to benefit from the educational program, a more (cost-) effective self-management program might be designed, also on the long-run.

Indexed as

Cost-benefit analysisEducationNurses practice patternsPsychological adaptationQuality of lifeSelf-careType 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID28031750
PMCPMC5168861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.