ArticleRevista Cuidarte
Diabetes em Dia Program: acceptability and feasibility of the proposal.
Article in Revista Cuidarte. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: The contemporary approach to diabetes care emphasizes education for self-management. Objective: To evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of a proposed educational program for type 2 diabetes self-management (Diabetes em Dia Program), tailored for the users of an outpatient service at a private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Materials and Methods: This was an evaluation study of the preliminary proposal for a complex intervention conducted by health professionals from the hospital's Diabetes Study Group. After being introduced to the proposal, professionals were invited to assess it using a semantic differential scale based on criteria of acceptability and feasibility. Evaluation was based on agreement percentages, and consensus was achieved when agreement reached ≥ 89%. Results: There was consensus that the program is suitable for managing type 2 diabetes; it is understandable, acceptable, and effective. It was also considered to pose no risk to patients or health professionals and require minimal additional material resources and ongoing supervision. However, there was no consensus regarding the program's general assessment, the effort and time required for its application, its ease/difficulty of application, the need for additional human resources, and its cost-effectiveness. Discussion: Professionals recognized the program's importance, suitability, value, and positive effects. However, they acknowledged that effective implementation would require significant changes in work processes. Conclusion: Although the program was favorably assessed across many acceptability criteria, barriers to its implementation were identified.
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.