Loveman E, Cave C, Green C, Royle P, Dunn N, Waugh N
Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(22):iii, 1-190. doi: 10.3310/hta7220.
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for patients with diabetes, compared with usual care or other educational interventions.
Electronic databases, reference lists and experts were all consulted in this study. Sponsor submissions to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence were also reviewed.
Electronic databases were searched, references of all retrieved articles were checked for relevant studies, and experts were contacted for advice and peer review and to identify additional published and unpublished references. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included if they fulfilled pre-specified criteria, among which was follow-up from inception for 12 months or longer. Data were synthesised through a narrative review because the diversity of studies prevented a meta-analysis.
Twenty-four studies (18 RCTs and six CCTs) that compared education with either a control group or with another educational intervention were included. The quality of reporting and methodology was generally found to be poor by today's standards. As part of treatment intensification, education in Type 1 diabetes (four studies) resulted in significant and long-lasting improvements in metabolic control and reductions in complications. In Type 2 diabetes (16 studies) a diversity of educational programmes did not yield consistent results on measures of metabolic control. Inconsistent results on metabolic control were also found in studies of diabetes of either type (four studies), with studies of lower quality producing significant effects. Few studies evaluated quality of life. Economic evaluations comparing education with usual care or other educational interventions were not identified.
Education as part of intensification of treatment produces improvement in diabetic control in Type 1 diabetes. Mixed results in Type 2 diabetes mean that no clear characterisation is possible as to what features of education may be beneficial. Cost analysis and information from sponsor submissions indicated that where costs associated with patient education were in the region of 500-600 pounds sterling per patients, the benefits over time would have to be very modest to offer an attractive cost-effectiveness profile. Further research should focus on RCTs with clear designs based on explicit hypotheses and with a range of outcomes evaluated after long follow-up intervals.
与常规护理或其他教育干预措施相比,评估针对糖尿病患者的教育干预措施的临床有效性和成本效益。
本研究查阅了电子数据库、参考文献列表并咨询了专家。还审查了向国家临床优化研究所提交的申办者资料。
检索电子数据库,检查所有检索文章的参考文献以查找相关研究,并联系专家征求意见和同行评审,以识别其他已发表和未发表的参考文献。如果随机临床试验(RCT)和对照临床试验(CCT)符合预先设定的标准则纳入,其中包括从开始随访12个月或更长时间。由于研究的多样性妨碍了进行荟萃分析,因此通过叙述性综述对数据进行了综合分析。
纳入了24项将教育与对照组或另一种教育干预措施进行比较的研究(18项RCT和6项CCT)。按照当今的标准,报告质量和方法质量总体上较差。作为强化治疗的一部分,1型糖尿病教育(4项研究)使代谢控制得到显著且持久的改善,并减少了并发症。在2型糖尿病(16项研究)中,各种教育计划在代谢控制指标上未产生一致的结果。在两种类型糖尿病的研究(4项研究)中也发现了代谢控制结果不一致的情况,质量较低的研究产生了显著效果。很少有研究评估生活质量。未找到将教育与常规护理或其他教育干预措施进行比较的经济评估。
作为强化治疗一部分的教育可改善1型糖尿病的血糖控制。2型糖尿病的结果不一,这意味着无法明确确定教育的哪些特征可能有益。成本分析和申办者提交的信息表明,若每位患者的患者教育相关成本在500 - 600英镑左右,随着时间推移,其益处必须非常有限才能具有有吸引力的成本效益。进一步的研究应侧重于基于明确假设、设计清晰的随机对照试验,并在长时间随访后评估一系列结局。