Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36589795›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2022

Diabetes health coach in individuals with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta analysis of quadruple aim outcomes.

Megan Racey, Milos Jovkovic, Paige Alliston, Muhammad Usman Ali, Diana Sherifali

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Making a Case for Whole Person Health.Global advances in integrative medicine and health
    Article
  19. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Megan RaceyMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Team; and School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, ON, Canada.
Milos JovkovicMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Team; and School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, ON, Canada.
Paige AllistonMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Team; and School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, ON, Canada.
Muhammad Usman AliMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Team; and Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, ON, Canada.
Diana SherifaliMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Team; and School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, ON, Canada.
McMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As diabetes self-management necessitates life-long learning, behaviour change, support, and monitoring, health coaching is a promising intervention to assist individuals in more than just meeting glycemic goals and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) targets. Currently, studies of health coaching for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are limited due to their emphasis on glycemic control. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effects of health coaching on adults with T2DM based on quadruple aim outcomes and to assess the implementation of these interventions. Methods: We searched 6 databases for randomized controlled trials of health coaching interventions delivered by a health professional for adults with T2DM. Reviewers screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (GRADE). We assessed statistical and methodological heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis of studies. Results: Nine studies were included in this review. Our meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of A1C [0.24 (95% CI, -0.38 to -0.09)] after exposure to diabetes health coaching, and small to trivial significant benefits for BMI, waist circumference, body weight, and depression/distress immediately post intervention based on moderate certainty of evidence. However, long term benefit of these clinical outcomes were not maintained at follow-up timepoints. There was a small significant benefit for systolic blood pressure which was maintained after the completion of health coaching exposure at follow-up, but there was no statistically significant benefit in other secondary outcomes such as diastolic blood pressure and lipid profile measures (e.g. triglycerides). Very few studies reported on other quadruple aim measures such as patient-reported outcomes, cost of care, and healthcare provider experience. Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis shows that health coaching interventions can have short term impact beyond glucose control on cardiometabolic and mental health outcomes. Future studies should try to examine quadruple aim outcomes to better assess the benefit and impact of these interventions at longer time points and following termination of the coaching program. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier (CRD42022347478).

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2AdultGlycated HemoglobinHealth BehaviorHealth PersonnelHealth PromotionHumansGlycated Hemoglobinhealth coachingmeta analysisquadruple aimsystematic reveiwtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID36589795
PMCPMC9800616
OpenAlexW4313272878

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.