Effectiveness of interventions based on patient empowerment in the control of type 2 diabetes in sub‐Saharan Africa: A review of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background It is estimated that 1.6 million deaths worldwide were directly caused by diabetes in 2016, and the burden of diabetes has been increasing rapidly in low‐ and middle‐income countries. This study reviews existing interventions based on patient empowerment and their effectiveness in controlling diabetes in sub‐Saharan Africa. Method PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Global Health were searched through August 2018, for randomized controlled trials of educational interventions on adherence to the medication plan and lifestyle changes among adults aged 18 years and over with type 2 diabetes. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used. Results Eleven publications from nine studies involving 2743 participants met the inclusion criteria. The duration of interventions with group education and individual education ranged from 3 to 12 months. For six studies comprising 1549 participants with meta‐analysable data on glycaemic control (HbA1c), there were statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups: mean difference was −0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.75, −0.40] ( P < .00001, I 2 = 27%). Seven studies with meta‐analysable data on blood pressure showed statistically significant differences between groups in favour of interventions. Subgroup analyses on glycaemic control showed that long‐term interventions were more effective than short‐term interventions and lifestyle interventions were more effective than diabetes self‐management education. Conclusion This review supports the findings that interventions based on patient empowerment may improve glycaemia (HbA1c) and blood pressure in patients with diabetes. The long‐term and lifestyle interventions appear to be the most effective interventions for glycaemic control.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".