Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36162865›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open diabetes research & care2022

Process evaluation of a pragmatic implementation trial to support self-management for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes in Uganda, South Africa and Sweden in the SMART2D project.

Josefien van Olmen, Pilvikki Absetz, Roy William Mayega, Linda Timm, Peter Delobelle, Helle Mölsted Alvesson, Glorai Naggayi, Francis Kasujja, Mariam Hassen, Jeroen de Man and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Supported self-management in long-term conditions in an African context.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2024
    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

16 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Josefien van OlmenDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium Josefien.vanOlmen@uantwerpen.be.ORCID 0000-0001-9724-1887
Pilvikki AbsetzFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Roy William MayegaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Linda TimmDepartment of Global Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Peter DelobelleChronic Disease Initiative for Africa, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Western Cape, South Africa.
Helle Mölsted AlvessonKarolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Glorai NaggayiSchool of Public Health, Makerere University Faculty of Medicine, Kampala, Uganda.
Francis KasujjaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Mariam HassenSchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa.
Jeroen de ManDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Kristi Sidney AnnerstedtDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8798-4027
Thandi PuoaneDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Claes-Göran ÖstensonDepartment of Global Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Goran TomsonDepartment of Global Health, Centrum för arbets- och miljömedicin, Stockholm, Sweden.
David GuwatuddeSchool of Public Health, Makerere School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Meena DaivadanamDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Makerere University · UGKarolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Antwerp · BEUppsala University · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SETampere University · FIUniversity of the Western Cape · ZAVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionType 2 diabetes (T2D) and its complications are increasing rapidly. Support for healthy lifestyle and self-management is paramount, but not adequately implemented in health systems. Process evaluations facilitate understanding why and how interventions work through analyzing the interaction between intervention theory, implementation and context. The Self-Management and Reciprocal Learning for Type 2 Diabetes project implemented and evaluated community-based interventions (peer support program; care companion; and link between facility care and community support) for persons at high risk of or having T2D in a rural community in Uganda, an urban township in South Africa, and socioeconomically disadvantaged urban communities in Sweden. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsThis paper reports implementation process outcomes across the three sites, guided by the Medical Research Council framework for complex intervention process evaluations. Data were collected through observations of peer support group meetings using a structured guide, and semistructured interviews with project managers, implementers, and participants.

resultsThe countries aligned implementation in accordance with the feasibility and relevance in the local context. In Uganda and Sweden, the implementation focused on peer support; in South Africa, it focused on the care companion part. The community-facility link received the least attention. Continuous capacity building received a lot of attention, but intervention reach, dose delivered, and fidelity varied substantially. Intervention-related and context-related barriers affected participation.

conclusionsIdentification of the key uncertainties and conditions facilitates focus and efficient use of resources in process evaluations, and context relevant findings. The use of an overarching framework allows to collect cross-contextual evidence and flexibility in evaluation design to adapt to the complex nature of the intervention. When designing interventions, it is crucial to consider aspects of the implementing organization or structure, its absorptive capacity, and to thoroughly assess and discuss implementation feasibility, capacity and organizational context with the implementation team and recipients. These recommendations are important for implementation and scale-up of complex interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11913581.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Self-ManagementHumansSouth AfricaSwedenUgandaCommunity MedicineDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Self-ManagementSocial Support

Identifiers

PMID36162865
PMCPMC9516210
OpenAlexW4297140840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.