Cited by 385Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchHealth disparities and outcomes

A systematic review of interventions to improve diabetes care in socially disadvantaged populations

Open access
Glazier, Richard H., Bajcar, Jana, Kennie, Natalie R., Willson, Kristie·2006·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To identify and synthesize evidence about the effectiveness of patient, provider, and health system interventions to improve diabetes care among socially disadvantaged populations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Studies that were included targeted interventions toward socially disadvantaged adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes; were conducted in industrialized countries; were measured outcomes of self-management, provider management, or clinical outcomes; and were randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, or before-and-after studies with a contemporaneous control group. Seven databases were searched for articles published in any language between January 1986 and December 2004. Twenty-six intervention features were identified and analyzed in terms of their association with successful or unsuccessful interventions. RESULTS—Eleven of 17 studies that met inclusion criteria had positive results. Features that appeared to have the most consistent positive effects included cultural tailoring of the intervention, community educators or lay people leading the intervention, one-on-one interventions with individualized assessment and reassessment, incorporating treatment algorithms, focusing on behavior-related tasks, providing feedback, and high-intensity interventions (>10 contact times) delivered over a long duration (≥6 months). Interventions that were consistently associated with the largest negative outcomes included those that used mainly didactic teaching or that focused only on diabetes knowledge. CONCLUSIONS—This systematic review provides evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve diabetes care among socially disadvantaged populations and identifies key intervention features that may predict success. These types of interventions would require additional resources for needs assessment, leader training, community and family outreach, and follow-up.

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 · 10.2337/dc05-1942

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • A personalized educational approach leveraging a multidisciplinary team leads to greater self-management skills.

    “A personalized educational approach to persons with DM, leveraging members of a multidisciplinary team, will lead to greater self-management skills.1459–1463”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [1461]

    The Analysis of features section (page unavailable) associates individualized assessment and behavioral approaches with more successful interventions for socially disadvantaged people with diabetes. The review also describes education delivered by different health care providers, but it does not establish that a multidisciplinary educational team leads specifically to greater self-management skills. Its findings are associations across varied outcomes, not the causal result stated here. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Diabetes self-management education and support interventions that were culturally appropriate were associated with better outcomes.

    “Better outcomes were reported for DSMES interventions that were more than 10 h over the course of 6-12 months (20), included ongoing support (14,32), were culturally (33)(34)(35) and age appropriate (36,37), were tailored to individual needs and preferences, addressed psychosocial issues, and incorporated behavioral strategies (15,26,38,39).”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glazier, R. H., Bajcar, J., Kennie, N. R., & Willson, K.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2006-07-01
Volume
29
Issue
7
Pages
1675-1688
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2123708941
Cited by
385
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 20
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
disadvantaged groups, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, diabetes self-management, health interventions, cultural tailoring, community health workers, individualized care, treatment algorithm, feedback, intervention intensity, health disparities
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Patient Care Management, Patient Education as Topic, Psychosocial Deprivation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient-Centered Care, Developed Countries, Vulnerable Populations

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