Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 158 of the 158 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support

Beck, Joni, Greenwood, Deborah A., Blanton, Lori, Bollinger, Sandra T., Butcher, Marcene K., Condon, Jo Ellen, Cypress, Marjorie, Faulkner, Priscilla, Fischl, Amy Hess, Francis, Theresa, Kolb, Leslie E., Lavin-Tompkins, Jodi M., MacLeod, Janice, Maryniuk, Melinda, Mensing, Carolé, Orzeck, Eric A., Pope, David D., Pulizzi, Jodi L., Reed, Ardis A., Rhinehart, Andrew S., Siminerio, Linda, Wang, Jing·2018·The Diabetes Educator

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. Methods: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. Results: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. Conclusion: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/0145721718754797

Cites

158 of 158 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 158 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Beck, J., Greenwood, D. A., Blanton, L., Bollinger, S. T., Butcher, M. K., Condon, J. E., Cypress, M., Faulkner, P., Fischl, A. H., Francis, T., Kolb, L. E., Lavin-Tompkins, J. M., MacLeod, J., Maryniuk, M., Mensing, C., Orzeck, E. A., Pope, D. D., Pulizzi, J. L., Reed, A. A., Rhinehart, A. S., Siminerio, L., & Wang, J.
Venue
The Diabetes Educator
Published
2018-01-18
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
35-50
ISSN
  • 0145-7217 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-6063
OpenAlex
W2741836703
Cited by
288
References
158
FWCI
33.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0145721718754797
The paper
Beck, J., Greenwood, D. A., Blanton, L., Bollinger, S. T., Butcher, M. K., Condon, J. E., Cypress, M., Faulkner, P., Fischl, A. H., Francis, T., Kolb, L. E., Lavin-Tompkins, J. M., MacLeod, J., Maryniuk, M., Mensing, C., Orzeck, E. A., Pope, D. D., Pulizzi, J. L., Reed, A. A., . . . Wang, J. (2018). 2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support. The Diabetes Educator. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721718754797

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.