The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patient Empowerment: Results of a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if participation in a patient empowerment program would result in improved psychosocial self-efficacy and attitudes toward diabetes, as well as a reduction in blood glucose levels. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was conducted as a randomized, wait-listed control group trial. The intervention group received a six-session (one session per week) patient empowerment education program; the control group was assigned to a wait-list. At the end of 6 weeks, the control group completed the six-session empowerment program. Six weeks after the program, both groups provided follow-up data. RESULTS: The intervention group showed gains over the control group on four of the eight self-efficacy subscales and two of the five diabetes attitude subscales. Also, the intervention group showed a significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin levels. Within groups, analysis of data from all program participants showed sustained improvements in all of the self-efficacy areas and two of the five diabetes attitude subscales and a modest improvement in blood glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that patient empowerment is an effective approach to developing educational interventions for addressing the psychosocial aspects of living with diabetes. Furthermore, patient empowerment is conducive to improving blood glucose control. In an ideal setting, patient education would address equally blood glucose management and the psychosocial challenges of living with diabetes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of self-report measures.
Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.2.144 · Cited by 565
Surwit, R. S., Schneider, M. S., & Feinglos, M. N. (1992) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.15.10.1413 · Cited by 400
Cited by
Effectiveness of Self-Management Training in Type 2 Diabetes
Norris, S. L., Engelgau, M. M., & Venkat Narayan, K. M. (2001) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.24.3.561 · Cited by 1,846
Self-Management Education for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
Norris, S. L., Lau, J., Smith, S. J., Schmid, C. H., & Engelgau, M. M. (2002) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.25.7.1159 · Cited by 1,750
How Can We Increase Translation of Research into Practice? Types of Evidence Needed
Glasgow, R. E., & Emmons, K. M. (2007) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144145 · Cited by 1,050
Davies, M. J., Heller, S., Skinner, T. C., Campbell, M. J., Carey, M. E., Cradock, S., Dallosso, H. M., Daly, H., Doherty, Y., Eaton, S., et al. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39474.922025.be · Cited by 760
Heisler, M., Bouknight, R. R., Hayward, R. A., Smith, D. M., & Kerr, E. A. (2002) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10905.x · Cited by 717
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, R. M., Funnell, M. M., Butler, P. M., Arnold, M. S., Fitzgerald, J. T., & Feste, C. C.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 1995-07-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 943-949
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2032217963
- Cited by
- 809
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.34
- 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: Patient Empowerment: Results of a randomized controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.18.7.943
- The paper
- Anderson, R. M., Funnell, M. M., Butler, P. M., Arnold, M. S., Fitzgerald, J. T., & Feste, C. C. (1995). Patient Empowerment: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.18.7.943
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.