Cited by 138Diabetes Management and EducationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCancer survivorship and care

Psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Open access
Chew, Boon How, Vos, Rimke C, Metzendorf, Maria-Inti, Scholten, Rob JPM, Rutten, Guy EHM·2017·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience a psychosocial burden and mental health problems associated with the disease. Diabetes-related distress (DRD) has distinct effects on self-care behaviours and disease control. Improving DRD in adults with T2DM could enhance psychological well-being, health-related quality of life, self-care abilities and disease control, also reducing depressive symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with T2DM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, BASE, WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was December 2014 for BASE and 21 September 2016 for all other databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of psychological interventions for DRD in adults (18 years and older) with T2DM. We included trials if they compared different psychological interventions or compared a psychological intervention with usual care. Primary outcomes were DRD, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, diabetes-related complications, all-cause mortality and socioeconomic effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified publications for inclusion and extracted data. We classified interventions according to their focus on emotion, cognition or emotion-cognition. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to compute overall estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 RCTs with 9177 participants. Sixteen trials were parallel two-arm RCTs, and seven were three-arm parallel trials. There were also seven cluster-randomised trials: two had four arms, and the remaining five had two arms. The median duration of the intervention was six months (range 1 week to 24 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 12 months). The trials included a wide spectrum of interventions and were both individual- and group-based.A meta-analysis of all psychological interventions combined versus usual care showed no firm effect on DRD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.03; P = 0.17; 3315 participants; 12 trials; low-quality evidence), HRQoL (SMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.87; 1932 participants; 5 trials; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (11 per 1000 versus 11 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% CI 0.17 to 6.03; P = 0.99; 1376 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence) or adverse events (17 per 1000 versus 41 per 1000; RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.78 to 7.39; P = 0.13; 438 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). We saw small beneficial effects on self-efficacy and HbA1c at medium-term follow-up (6 to 12 months): on self-efficacy the SMD was 0.15 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.05; 2675 participants; 6 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions; on HbA1c there was a mean difference (MD) of -0.14% (95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; P = 0.05; 3165 participants; 11 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions. Our included trials did not report diabetes-related complications or socioeconomic effects.Many trials were small and were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as well as possible performance and detection biases in the subjective questionnaire-based outcomes assessment, and some appeared to be at risk of selective reporting. There are four trials awaiting further classification. These are parallel RCTs with cognition-focused and emotion-cognition focused interventions. There are another 18 ongoing trials, likely focusing on emotion-cognition or cognition, assessing interventions such as diabetes self-management support, telephone-based cognitive behavioural therapy, stress management and a web application for problem solving in diabetes management. Most of these trials have a community setting and are based in the USA. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence showed that none of the psychological interventions would improve DRD more than usual care. Low-quality evidence is available for improved self-efficacy and HbA1c after psychological interventions. This means that we are uncertain about the effects of psychological interventions on these outcomes. However, psychological interventions probably have no substantial adverse events compared to usual care. More high-quality research with emotion-focused programmes, in non-US and non-European settings and in low- and middle-income countries, is needed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd011469.pub2

Cites

232 of 232 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CBT and other approaches designed to directly reduce distress or diabetes distress have failed to consistently improve clinical outcomes for people with diabetes.

    “Thus, CBT and other approaches designed to directly reduce distress or DD have failed to consistently improve clinical outcomes for people with diabetes (6–8,11).”

    From Addressing emotional distress to improve outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: Protocol for ACT1VATE randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Background reports no firm effect on blood pressure and describes the evidence as low quality, which supports the claim that clinical benefits were not consistent. But the Discussion reports improved HbA1c compared with usual care, and the review covers adults with type 2 diabetes, not all people with diabetes. The claim omits both qualifications. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous trials and reviews suggested that psychological interventions were effective in improving diabetes-related knowledge, modifying illness perceptions, and enhancing self-efficacy.

    “Previous trials and reviews suggested that these psychological interventions were effective in improving patients' diabetes-related knowledge, modifying illness perceptions, and enhancing self-efficacy (Chew et al., 2017).”

    From Effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. (2024) · cites this paper as Chew et al., 2017

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports improved self-efficacy compared with usual care, although the authors’ conclusions describe the benefit as small and uncertain. The Background discusses changing illness perceptions as a proposed mechanism, not an established intervention effect; the passages found do not report improved diabetes-related knowledge. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cultural factors such as machismo, familismo, and simpatia have high potential to adversely impact individuals' engagement in their diabetes care and management.

    “These are examples of cultural factors with high potential to adversely impact individuals’ engagement in their diabetes care and management.”

    From Addressing emotional distress to improve outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: Protocol for ACT1VATE randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Background discusses diabetes distress, fatalism, social support, and reduced self-care, but does not identify machismo, familismo, or simpatia as factors affecting diabetes care. Searches for those terms and for cultural barriers to self-management found no passage in our copy making the attributed point; the copy is truncated. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 238 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Taylor E. Improving the perceived psychological well‐being of seniors with type 2 diabetes through participation in two innovative programs. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 2001:1‐99. [UMI Number: DP14197]
  2. Chiu CJ, Hu YH, Wray LA, Beverly EA, Yang YC, Wu JS, Lu FH. Dissemination of evidence‐base minimal psychological intervention for diabetes management in Taiwan adults with type 2 diabetes. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2016;9(7):14489‐98. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dafoulas GE, Giata P, Giannakakos H, Stafylas P, Aletras V, Theodorou K, et al. Long‐term tele‐monitoring of patients with DMT2: preliminary results of the Greek pilot of the renewing health multicenter randomised trial. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2014;16(Suppl 1):A26. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chew BH, Vos R, Mohd‐Sidik S, Rutten GE. Diabetes‐Related Distress, Depression and Distress‐Depression among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Malaysia. PLoS One 2016;11(3):e0152095. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152095] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  5. D'Eramo Melkus G, Chyun D, Vorderstrasse A, Newlin K, Jefferson V, Langerman S. The effect of a diabetes education, coping skills training, and care intervention on physiological and psychosocial outcomes in black women with type 2 diabetes. Biological Research for Nursing 2010;12(1):7‐12. [DOI: 10.1177/1099800410369825] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  6. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 7th Edition. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  7. Morley JE. The elderly Type 2 diabetic patient: special considerations. Diabetic Medicine 1998;15 Suppl 4:S41‐6. [PUBMED: 9868991] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Quinones AR, Richardson J, Freeman M, O'Neil ME, Kansagara D. Group Visits Focusing on Education for the Management of Chronic Conditions in Adults: A Systematic Review: VA Evidence‐based Synthesis Program Reports. Washington DC: Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012. [PUBMED: 24501785] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
  10. Sperl‐Hillen J, Beaton S, Fernandes O, Worley A, Vazquez‐Benitez G, Parker E, et al. Comparative effectiveness of patient education methods for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171(22):2001‐10. [DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.507] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chew, B. H., Vos, R. C., Metzendorf, M.-I., Scholten, R. J., & Rutten, G. E.
Affiliations
  • Universiti Putra Malaysia (MY)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-09-27
Volume
2017
Issue
10
Pages
CD011469-CD011469
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2161920207
Cited by
138
References
238
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Putra Malaysia) (acceptedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (PB-PG-0610-22311)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
diabetes distress, type 2 diabetes, psychological intervention, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, glycemic control, HbA1c, depression, diabetes self-management education, cognitive behavioral therapy, group intervention, emotion-focused interventions, cognitive intervention, socioeconomic burden, diabetes complications, mortality, adverse events, self-care behavior, blood pressure control
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Psychotherapy, Quality of Life, Self Care, Stress, Psychological, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review