Effect of DECIDE (Decision-making Education for Choices In Diabetes Everyday) program delivery modalities on clinical and behavioral outcomes in urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three delivery modalities of Decision-making Education for Choices In Diabetes Everyday (DECIDE), a nine-module, literacy-adapted diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) education and problem-solving training, compared with an enhanced usual care (UC), on clinical and behavioral outcomes among urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eligible participants (n = 182) had a suboptimal CVD risk factor profile (A1C, blood pressure, and/or lipids). Participants were randomized to DECIDE Self-Study (n = 46), DECIDE Individual (n = 45), DECIDE Group (n = 46), or Enhanced UC (n = 45). Intervention duration was 18-20 weeks. Outcomes were A1C, blood pressure, lipids, problem-solving, disease knowledge, and self-care activities, all measured at baseline, 1 week, and 6 months after completion of the intervention. RESULTS: DECIDE modalities and Enhanced UC did not significantly differ in clinical outcomes at 6 months postintervention. In participants with A1C ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol) at baseline, A1C declined in each DECIDE modality at 1 week postintervention (P < 0.05) and only in Self-Study at 6 months postintervention (b = -0.24, P < 0.05). There was significant reduction in systolic blood pressure in Self-Study (b = -4.04) and Group (b = -3.59) at 6 months postintervention. Self-Study, Individual, and Enhanced UC had significant declines in LDL and Self-Study had an increase in HDL (b = 1.76, P < 0.05) at 6 months postintervention. Self-Study and Individual had a higher increase in knowledge than Enhanced UC (P < 0.05), and all arms improved in problem-solving (P < 0.01) at 6 months postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: DECIDE modalities showed benefits after intervention. Self-Study demonstrated robust improvements across clinical and behavioral outcomes, suggesting program suitability for broader dissemination to populations with similar educational and literacy levels.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 randomized controlled trial testing a decision-making education and skill-building program showed that addressing these targets improved health outcomes in a population in need of health care resources.
“A randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing a decision-making education and skill-building program (10) showed that addressing these targets improved health outcomes in a population in need of health care resources.”
From 5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes:<i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023</i> (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
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 33 · Cited by 49
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [9]9. Boren SA. AADE7TM self-care behaviors: Systematic reviews. Diabetes Educ 2007;33:866, 871
- Authors
- Fitzpatrick, S. L., Golden, S. H., Stewart, K., Sutherland, J., DeGross, S., Brown, T., Wang, N.-Y., Allen, J., Cooper, L. A., & Hill-Briggs, F.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
- ORCID
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2016-11-10
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2149-2157
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- PMC
- PMC5127230
- OpenAlex
- W2555850559
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 3.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL089751)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30 DK079637)
- National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000052)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, African Americans, diabetes self-management education, cardiovascular risk, group intervention, individual interventions, glycemic control, blood pressure, serum lipids, problem-solving skills, diabetes knowledge, health literacy, urban population
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Black or African American, Cardiovascular Diseases, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Risk Factors, Self Care, Urban Population, Program Evaluation, Treatment Outcome
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
