Suppr超能文献

2型糖尿病患者教育方法的比较效果:一项随机对照试验

Comparative effectiveness of patient education methods for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Sperl-Hillen JoAnn, Beaton Sarah, Fernandes Omar, Von Worley Ann, Vazquez-Benitez Gabriela, Parker Emily, Hanson Ann, Lavin-Tompkins Jodi, Glasrud Patricia, Davis Herbert, Adams Kenneth, Parsons William, Spain C Victor

机构信息

HealthPartners Research Foundation and HealthPartners Medical Group, Minneapolis, MN 55440, USA.

出版信息

Arch Intern Med. 2011 Dec 12;171(22):2001-10. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.507. Epub 2011 Oct 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Group education for patients with suboptimally controlled diabetes has not been rigorously studied.

METHODS

A total of 623 adults from Minnesota and New Mexico with type 2 diabetes and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) concentrations of 7% or higher were randomized to (1) group education (using the US Diabetes Conversation Map program), (2) individual education, or (3) usual care (UC; ie, no assigned education). Both education methods covered content as needed to meet national standards for diabetes self-management education and were delivered through accredited programs from 2008 to 2009. General linear mixed-model methods assessed patient-level changes between treatment groups in mean HbA(1c) levels from baseline to follow-up at 6.8 months. Secondary outcomes included mean change in general health status (Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID), Diabetes Self-Efficacy (DES-SF), Recommended Food Score (RFS), and Physical Activity (PA, min/wk).

RESULTS

Mean HbA(1c) concentration decreased in all groups but significantly more with individual (-0.51%) than group education (-0.27%) (P = .01) and UC (-0.24%) (P = .01). The proportion of subjects with follow-up HbA(1c) concentration lower than 7% was greater for individual education (21.2%) than for group (13.9%) and UC (12.8%) (P = .03). Compared with UC, individual education (but not group) improved SF-12 physical component score (+1.88) (P = .04), PA (+42.95 min/wk) (P = .03), and RFS (+0.63) (P = .05). Compared with group education, individual education reduced PAID (-3.62) (P = .02) and increased self-efficacy (+0.1) (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Individual education for patients with established suboptimally controlled diabetes resulted in better glucose control outcomes than did group education using Conversation Maps. There was also a trend toward better psychosocial and behavioral outcomes with individual education.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00652509.

摘要

背景

对血糖控制欠佳的糖尿病患者进行小组教育尚未得到严格研究。

方法

共有623名来自明尼苏达州和新墨西哥州的2型糖尿病成年患者,其糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)浓度为7%或更高,被随机分为三组:(1)小组教育(使用美国糖尿病交流地图项目),(2)个体教育,或(3)常规护理(UC;即未分配教育)。两种教育方法均根据需要涵盖了符合糖尿病自我管理教育国家标准的内容,并于2008年至2009年通过认证项目实施。采用一般线性混合模型方法评估治疗组之间从基线到6.8个月随访时平均HbA1c水平的患者层面变化。次要结局包括总体健康状况的平均变化(医学结局研究12项简短健康调查[SF - 12])、糖尿病问题领域(PAID)、糖尿病自我效能感(DES - SF)、推荐食物评分(RFS)和身体活动(PA,分钟/周)。

结果

所有组的平均HbA1c浓度均有所下降,但个体教育组(-0.51%)下降幅度显著大于小组教育组(-0.27%)(P = 0.01)和常规护理组(-0.24%)(P = 0.01)。个体教育组随访时HbA1c浓度低于7%的受试者比例(21.2%)高于小组教育组(13.9%)和常规护理组(12.8%)(P = 0.03)。与常规护理组相比,个体教育(而非小组教育)改善了SF - 12身体成分评分(+1.88)(P = 0.04)、身体活动(+42.95分钟/周)(P = 0.03)和推荐食物评分(+0.63)(P = 0.05)。与小组教育相比,个体教育降低了PAID(-3.62)(P = 0.02)并提高了自我效能感(+0.1)(P = 0.04)。

结论

对已确诊血糖控制欠佳的糖尿病患者进行个体教育比使用交流地图进行小组教育能带来更好的血糖控制效果。个体教育在心理社会和行为结局方面也有更好的趋势。

试验注册

clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00652509。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验