Cited by 668Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

Group based diabetes self-management education compared to routine treatment for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic review with meta-analysis

Open access
Steinsbekk, Aslak, Rygg, LisbethØ, Lisulo, Monde, Rise, Marit B, Fretheim, Atle·2012·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education (DSME) can be delivered in many forms. Group based DSME is widespread due to being a cheaper method and the added advantages of having patient meet and discuss with each other. assess effects of group-based DSME compared to routine treatment on clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial outcomes in type-2 diabetes patients. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Computerised bibliographic database were searched up to January 2008 for randomised controlled trials evaluating group-based DSME for adult type-2 diabetics versus routine treatment where the intervention had at least one session and =/>6 months follow-up. At least two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. RESULTS: In total 21 studies (26 publications, 2833 participants) were included. Of all the participants 4 out of 10 were male, baseline age was 60 years, BMI 31.6, HbA1c 8.23%, diabetes duration 8 years and 82% used medication. For the main clinical outcomes, HbA1c was significantly reduced at 6 months (0.44% points; P=0.0006, 13 studies, 1883 participants), 12 months (0.46% points; P=0.001, 11 studies, 1503 participants) and 2 years (0.87% points; P<0.00001, 3 studies, 397 participants) and fasting blood glucose levels were also significantly reduced at 12 months (1.26 mmol/l; P<0.00001, 5 studies, 690 participants) but not at 6 months. For the main lifestyle outcomes, diabetes knowledge was improved significantly at 6 months (SMD 0.83; P=0.00001, 6 studies, 768 participants), 12 months (SMD 0.85; P<0.00001, 5 studies, 955 participants) and 2 years (SMD 1.59; P=0.03, 2 studies, 355 participants) and self-management skills also improved significantly at 6 months (SMD 0.55; P=0.01, 4 studies, 534 participants). For the main psychosocial outcomes, there were significant improvement for empowerment/self-efficacy (SMD 0.28, P=0.01, 2 studies, 326 participants) after 6 months. For quality of life no conclusion could be drawn due to high heterogeneity. For the secondary outcomes there were significant improvements in patient satisfaction and body weight at 12 months for the intervention group. There were no differences between the groups in mortality rate, body mass index, blood pressure and lipid profile. CONCLUSIONS: Group-based DSME in people with type 2 diabetes results in improvements in clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial outcomes.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-12-213

Cites

52 of 52 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas. Third Edition 2006 International Diabetes Federation, Brussels
  2. Green S Higgins JPT Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2008 Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steinsbekk, A., Rygg, L., Lisulo, M., Rise, M. B., & Fretheim, A.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Steinsbekk, Aslak
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2012-07-23
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
213-213
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025306913
Cited by
660
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deakin University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, HbA1c, glycemic control, fasting blood glucose, diabetes knowledge, self-management skills, psychosocial outcomes, patient education, cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Patient Education as Topic, Power, Psychological, Quality of Life, Self Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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