ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2026
Gender differences in self-efficacy and self-management behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in European journal of translational myology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A systematic meta-analysis was conducted to examine gender differences in self-efficacy and self-management among adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Twenty studies (2000-2025) with gender-disaggregated data were analyzed according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The meta-analysis used standardized mean differences (Hedges' g; men minus women) and a multilevel random-effects model, with moderator and sensitivity analyses for behavioral domains, measurement types, regions, and study quality. The pooled effect size was small and positive (g = 0.37, 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.85), but the confidence interval included zero and heterogeneity was substantial (I² = 95.3%), indicating considerable between-study variability. Moderator analyses showed no significant differences by behavioral domain, measurement method, region, or publication year. Evidence of small-study effects and wide prediction intervals further reduced certainty in the findings. Domain-specific results (e.g., dietary self-management) were also positive but imprecise. Importantly, the certainty of evidence was rated low to very low due to imprecision, inconsistency, and potential publication bias, as assessed by the GRADE framework. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as provisional and hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. In summary, gender differences in self-efficacy and self-management in T2DM are small, inconsistently estimated, and of low certainty, with a tendency to favor men. These results suggest that gender is not a robust determinant of diabetes self-management, and that contextual and psychosocial factors likely contribute to variability across studies. Interventions should aim to enhance self-efficacy for all individuals with T2DM using context-sensitive and gender-responsive approaches. Future research should use standardized measures, report gender-disaggregated data, and include broader geographic samples.
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.