OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review aims to identify diabetes self-management education (DSME) features to improve diabetes education for Black African/Caribbean and Hispanic/Latin American women with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in six health databases for randomized controlled trials and comparative studies. Success rates of intervention features were calculated based on effectiveness in improving glycosolated hemoglobin (HbA1c), anthropometrics, physical activity, or diet outcomes. Calculations of rate differences assessed whether an intervention feature positively or negatively affected an outcome. RESULTS: From 13 studies included in our analysis, we identified 38 intervention features in relation to their success with an outcome. Five intervention features had positive rate differences across at least three outcomes: hospital-based interventions, group interventions, the use of situational problem-solving, frequent sessions, and incorporating dietitians as interventionists. Six intervention features had high positive rate differences (i.e. ≥50%) on specific outcomes. CONCLUSION: Different DSME intervention features may influence broad and specific self-management outcomes for women of African/Caribbean and Hispanic/Latin ethnicity. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: With the emphasis on patient-centered care, patients and care providers can consider options based on DSME intervention features for its broad and specific impact on outcomes to potentially make programming more effective.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review aims to identify diabetes self-management education (DSME) features to improve diabetes education for Black African/Caribbean and Hispanic/Latin American women with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in six health databases for randomized controlled trials and comparative studies. Success rates of intervention features were calculated based on effectiveness in improving glycosolated hemoglobin (HbA1c), anthropometrics, physical activity, or diet outcomes. Calculations of rate differences assessed whether an intervention feature positively or negatively affected an outcome. RESULTS: From 13 studies included in our analysis, we identified 38 intervention features in relation to their success with an outcome. Five intervention features had positive rate differences across at least three outcomes: hospital-based interventions, group interventions, the use of situational problem-solving, frequent sessions, and incorporating dietitians as interventionists. Six intervention features had high positive rate differences (i.e. ≥50%) on specific outcomes. CONCLUSION: Different DSME intervention features may influence broad and specific self-management outcomes for women of African/Caribbean and Hispanic/Latin ethnicity. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: With the emphasis on patient-centered care, patients and care providers can consider options based on DSME intervention features for its broad and specific impact on outcomes to potentially make programming more effective.
Authors: Hannah Nguyen; Dara H Sorkin; John Billimek; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; Quyen Ngo-Metzger Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2014-11
Authors: Ananya Tina Banerjee; Sarah McTavish; Joel G Ray; Enza Gucciardi; Julia Lowe; Denice Feig; Geetha Mukerji; Wei Wu; Lorraine L Lipscombe Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2016-12
Authors: Guadalupe X Ayala; Leticia Ibarra; Andrea L Cherrington; Humberto Parada; Lucy Horton; Ming Ji; John P Elder Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Wei Duan-Porter; Karen M Goldstein; Jennifer R McDuffie; Jaime M Hughes; Megan E B Clowse; Ruth S Klap; Varsha Masilamani; Nancy M Allen LaPointe; Avishek Nagi; Jennifer M Gierisch; John W Williams Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 25.391