Cited by 65Diabetes Management and EducationMedication Adherence and ComplianceDiabetes Management and Research

Interventions to improve patients’ compliance with therapies aimed at lowering glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled clinical trials of psychological, telecare, and educational interventions

Open access
On Behalf of the Brazilian Type 1 Diabetes Study Group (BrazDiab1SG), Viana, Luciana Verçoza, Gomes, Marilia Brito, Zajdenverg, Lenita, Pavin, Elizabeth Joao, Azevedo, Mirela Jobim·2016·Trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Brazilian records on glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes show treatment efficacy. Poor patient adherence to therapeutic proposals influences these results and can be associated with social, psychological, and economic aspects, besides others factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of psychological, telecare, and educational interventions to improve treatment compliance among patients with type 1 diabetes. Compliance was assessed indirectly using reduction of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the principal outcome measure. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases up to April 2015. The following medical subject headings were used: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Patient Compliance or Adherence, Hemoglobin A, glycated, and Randomized Controlled Trial. The principal outcome was change in HbA1c between baseline and follow-up. Where appropriate, trials were combined in meta-analysis using fixed effects models. RESULTS: From 191 articles initially identified, 57 were full text reviewed, and 19 articles met the inclusion criteria providing data from 1782 patients (49.4 % males, age 18 years). The RCTs (2 to 24 months in duration) were divided into four groups according to type of intervention: psychology (seven studies; 818 patients), telecare (six studies; 494 patients); education (five studies; 349 patients), and psychoeducation (one study; 153 patients). All studies reported some type of adherence measurement of the interventions. Decrease in HbA1c was observed after psychology (MD -0.310; 95 % CI, -0.599 to -0.0210, P = 0.035) but not after telecare (MD -0.124 %; 95 % CI, -0.268, 0.020; P = 0.090) or educational (MD -0.001; 95 % CI, -0.202, 0.200; P = 0.990) interventions. CONCLUSION: Psychological approaches to improve adherence to diabetes care treatment modestly reduced HbA1c in patients with type 1 diabetes; telecare and education interventions did not change glycemic control. However, the limited number of studies included as well as their methodological quality should be taken into account.

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/s13063-016-1207-6

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 54 · Cited by 65

Authors
On Behalf of the Brazilian Type 1 Diabetes Study Group (BrazDiab1SG), Viana, L. V., Gomes, M. B., Zajdenverg, L., Pavin, E. J., & Azevedo, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
Corresponding author
Viana, Luciana Verçoza
Venue
Trials
Published
2016-02-17
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
94-94
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2279840461
Cited by
65
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre
  • Fundação Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, HbA1c, glycemic control, medication adherence, psychological intervention, telecare, patient education, psychoeducation, HbA1c reduction, diabetes self-management education, behavioral interventions, telemedicine, educational intervention, Brazilian patients, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Telemedicine

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