Effectiveness of a group diabetes education programme in under‐served communities in South Africa: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of group education, led by health promoters using a guiding style, for people with type 2 diabetes in public sector community health centres in Cape Town. METHODS: This was a pragmatic clustered randomized controlled trial with 17 randomly selected intervention and 17 control sites. A total of 860 patients with type 2 diabetes, regardless of therapy used, were recruited from the control sites and 710 were recruited from the intervention sites. The control sites offered usual care, while the intervention sites offered a total of four monthly sessions of group diabetes education led by a health promoter. Participants were measured at baseline and 12 months later. Primary outcomes were diabetes self-care activities, 5% weight loss and a 1% reduction in HbA(1c) levels. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, locus of control, mean blood pressure, mean weight loss, mean waist circumference, mean HbA1c and mean total cholesterol levels and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 422 (59.4%) participants in the intervention group did not attend any education sessions. No significant improvement was found in any of the primary or secondary outcomes, apart from a significant reduction in mean systolic (-4.65 mmHg, 95% CI 9.18 to -0.12; P = 0.04) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.30 mmHg, 95% CI -5.35 to -1.26; P = 0.002). Process evaluation suggested that there were problems with finding suitable space for group education in these under-resourced settings, with patient attendance and with full adoption of a guiding style by the health promoters. CONCLUSION: The reported effectiveness of group diabetes education offered by more highly trained professionals, in well-resourced settings, was not replicated in the present study, although the reduction in participants' mean blood pressure is likely to be of clinical significance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".