Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37910312›Full record

ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2023

Positive Psychology Interventions for Improving Self-management Behaviors in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: a Narrative Review of Current Evidence.

Lihua Pan, Nelson C Y Yeung

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current diabetes reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lihua PanJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Room 508, Postgraduate Education Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, School of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Nelson C Y YeungJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Room 508, Postgraduate Education Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, School of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. nelsonyeung@cuhk.edu.hk.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewInterests have been emerging in using positive psychology interventions (PPIs) to improve diabetes self-management (DSM) behaviors (e.g., blood glucose monitoring, physical activity). To explore the impact of those interventions on DSM behaviors, we summarized the evidence of PPIs on self-management behaviors among both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients between 2012 and 2022. RECENT

findingsAmong the eight studies identified, different study designs and types of PPIs were apparent. Typical PPIs (e.g., activities enhancing positive affect/gratitude/self-affirmation/optimism) were usually applied to T1D patients (N = 5); PPIs were usually combined with motivational interviewing for T2D patients (N = 3). Contrary to expectations, PPIs did not consistently demonstrate positive effects on self-management behaviors' change regardless of the types of diabetes patients, compared to the control groups. Improvements in diabetes patients' self-management behaviors from PPIs are still unclear. Future studies should more rigorously evaluate and identify the active ingredients of PPIs for behavioral changes among diabetes patients.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Self-ManagementBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringHumansPsychology, PositiveBlood GlucoseDiabetes mellitusPositive affectPositive psychology interventionSelf-management behaviors

Identifiers

PMID37910312
OpenAlexW4388133414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.