Cited by 112Diabetes Management and EducationResilience and Mental HealthOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

Determining the Efficacy of a Resiliency Training Approach in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

Bradshaw, Beverly G., Richardson, Glenn E., Kumpfer, Karol, Carlson, Joseph, Stanchfield, John, Overall, James, Brooks, Ann Marie, Kulkarni, Karmeen·2007·The Diabetes Educator

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized clinical study was to test the efficacy of a resiliency training approach for people with diabetes who have previously received standard diabetes self-education. METHODS: A single-blinded, randomized design was employed with repeated measures (baseline, 3 months, 6 months) with 67 participants assigned to either treatment as usual (n = 37) or the resiliency classes (n = 30). Outcome variables included physiological measures (glycosylated hemoglobin, waist measurement, eating and exercise habits) and psychosocial measures (self-efficacy, locus of control, social support, and purpose in life). RESULTS: Analyses of variance indicated that the intervention group had higher levels of resiliency as reported by knowing positive ways of coping with diabetes-related stress, knowing enough about themselves to make right diabetes choices, having fun in life, eating healthier, and increasing physical activity compared with the control group at 3 months (P < .05). Glycosylated hemoglobin and waist measurement improved but not significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to foster resilience among people with diabetes have the potential to make an important contribution to increasing positive life outcomes. Diabetes educators using the resiliency approach in tandem with standard diabetes education programs can assist their patients to become more self-directed in their diabetes care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0145721707303809

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Although Bradshaw et al. found no significant group difference for self reported exercise, program participants were significantly less likely than those in the control group to report barriers to physical activity, or trouble exercising because of not liking exercise or health problems.

    “Although Bradshaw et al., found no significant group difference for self reported exercise, program participants were significantly less likely than those in the control group to report barriers to physical activity, or trouble exercising because of not liking exercise or health problems [8].”
  • Positive coping shares roots with resilience, which has been shown to impact health behaviors such as diet, physical activity, and overall type 2 diabetes self-management.

    “Positive coping shares roots with resilience, which has also been shown to impact health behaviors such as diet, physical activity, and overall T2D self-management [67–69].”
  • Only one resilience study found significant improvement in resilience, and this occurred only at six-month follow-up, not immediately after intervention.

    “However, only one study found a significant improvement in resilience post-intervention [70], and this significant change only occurred at the six-month follow-up and not immediately post-intervention.”
  • Other well-being outcomes in resilience studies, including positive affect, quality of life, self-efficacy, and purpose, showed no significant changes.

    “Additional well-being specific outcomes including positive affect, quality of life, self-efficacy, and purpose were measured [68, 70], but none showed significant change.”
  • Another resilience study found a significant decrease in physical activity barriers, but the effect was small and no longer significant at six-month follow-up.

    “Another found a significant decrease in physical activity barriers, though the effect size was small and no longer significant at six-month follow-up [70].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bradshaw, B. G., Richardson, G. E., Kumpfer, K., Carlson, J., Stanchfield, J., Overall, J., Brooks, A. M., & Kulkarni, K.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Venue
The Diabetes Educator
Published
2007-07
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
650-659
ISSN
  • 0145-7217 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-6063
OpenAlex
W2128797037
Cited by
112
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
resilience training, type 2 diabetes, diabetes self-management education, diabetes self-efficacy, locus of control, social support, meaning of life, physical activity, dietary habits, HbA1c, waist measurement, diabetes educators
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Health, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care, Social Support, Single-Blind Method

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