ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
What Is the Impact of a Context-Specific Training Program for Home-Based Carers? An Evaluation Study.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training Community Health Workers for Diabetes Management in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review.JMIR diabetes · 2026Review
- Implementation and translation of evidence-based dietary strategies for type 2 diabetes in resource-limited settings: a scoping review based on the CFIR framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Effect of Contextualized Competency-Based Clinical Skills Training on Nurses' Performance in a Private Hospital in Indonesia: A Quasi-Experimental Study.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn South Africa (SA), home-based carers (HBCs) play a crucial role at the community level for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) including diabetes mellitus (DM) public health care. The work of HBCs requires them to be knowledgeable about diabetes, and lack of knowledge has implications on their roles for the provision of health information and dietary advice. HBCs need to be provided with specific training to develop their knowledge and skills necessary to enable them to provide care to people with diabetes (PWD) because organizations need to benefit from a pool of well-trained HBCs. Therefore, a training program was developed to improve care for chronic conditions based on local needs.
aimTo implement and evaluate the training program for the HBCs for PWD in Ga-Dikgale village.
methodsHBCs working at Ga- Dikgale villages in four clinics-namely, Dikgale, Seobi Dikgale, Sebayeng, and Makotopong-participated voluntarily. Fifty-five (55) HBCs who attended the training program completed satisfaction survey tools, and furthermore, 45 HBCs completed both pre-training and post-training knowledge questionnaires. Training divided into two sessions which each lasted for two days was conducted. Satisfaction with the training, improvement of knowledge, and perceived impact on daily practice were evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
resultsQuantitative results indicate that 72% had poor knowledge of pre-training and only 9% post-training. They scored more in a post-test with the following differences: Post-test (mean = 6.00, SD = 1.26); pre-test (mean = 3.31, SD = 1.77). The
conclusionsA context-specific training increased diabetes knowledge among the HBCs for PWD. The results highlighted the importance of training in improving the knowledge of HBCs about the care of PWD. The improvement in diabetes knowledge among HBCs needs to be maintained and sustained to achieve major health benefits for PWD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.