ArticlePloS one2024
Diabetes self-management education programs: Results from a nationwide population-based study on characteristics of participants, rating of programs and reasons for non-participation.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Trends in prevalence and number of cases of diagnosed type 2 diabetes in Germany: Projections until 2050.Journal of health monitoring · 2025Article
- Conundrum and chances of diabetes management in the Western Pacific Region: A narrative review.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePopulation-based studies of reasons for not participating in diabetes self-management education (DSME) are scarce. Therefore, we investigated what sociodemographic and disease-related factors are associated with participation in DSME, the reasons for not participating in DSME and how participants evaluate DSME. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe used data from the nationwide survey "Disease knowledge and information needs-Diabetes mellitus 2017", which included a total of 1396 participants diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (diabetes; n = 394 DSME-participants, n = 1002 DSME-never-participants). Analyses used weighted logistic or multinominal regression analyses with bivariate and multivariable approaches.
resultsParticipants were more likely to attend DSME if they had a medium (OR 1.82 [95%CI 1.21-2.73]),or high (OR 2.04 [95%CI 1.30-3.21]) level of education, had type 1 diabetes (OR 2.46 [1.24-4.90]) and insulin treatment (OR 1.96 [95%CI 1.33-2.90]). Participants were less likely to attend DSME if they lived in East Germany (OR 0.57 [95%CI 0.39-0.83]), had diabetes for >2 to 5 years (OR 0.52 [95%CI 0.31-0.88] compared to >5 years), did not agree that diabetes is a lifelong disease (OR 0.30 [95%CI 0.15-0.62], had never been encouraged by their physician to attend DSME (OR 0.19 [95%CI 0.13-0.27]) and were not familiar with disease management programs (OR 0.67 [95%CI 0.47-0.96]). The main reasons for non-participation were participant's personal perception that DSME was not necessary (26.6%), followed by lack of recommendation from treating physician (25.7%) and lack of information on DSME (20.7%). DSME-participants found DSME more helpful if they had a medium educational level (OR 2.06 [95%CI 1.10-3.89] ref: low level of education) and less helpful if they were never encouraged by their treatment team (OR 0.46 [95%CI 0.26-0.82]). DISCUSSION: Professionals treating persons with diabetes should encourage their patients to attend DSME and underline that diabetes is a lifelong disease. Overall, the majority of DSME participants rated DSME as helpful.
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.