Effect of educational interventions on knowledge of the disease and glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Globally, type 2 diabetes has continued to increase, now accounting for over 90% of all diabetes cases. Though the magnitude of uncontrolled glycaemic levels in patients with type 2 diabetes is steadily rising, evidence showed that effectively controlled glycaemic levels can prevent complications and improve the quality of life of these patients. As little is known about the effect of educational interventions on this population, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions versus standard care on glycaemic control and disease knowledge among patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Scopus, African Journals Online and Wiley Online Library were searched. Two authors independently assessed within-trial risk of bias in each included study using revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. A random-effects model was employed to estimate combined effect sizes. Subgroup analyses were employed to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity between studies. The overall certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results A total of 19 trials with 2708 study participants were included in the review. Primary outcomes (glycaemic control) were reported in 18 trials. The pooled estimated impact of educational intervention on glycaemic levels using the random-effects model was −0.83 (95% CI: −1.17 to –0.49, p<0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed greater A1c reductions in those studies with intervention duration of up to 3 months and with empirical intervention designs. Educational interventions led to significant increases in participants’ knowledge of type 2 diabetes (standardised mean difference: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.60; I 2 =93%). Conclusion In the current review overall, educational interventions can potentially lead to improved glycaemic control levels in patients with type 2 diabetes despite heterogeneity across the studies. Besides, the findings showed that educational interventions could increase disease knowledge among patients with type 2 diabetes. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020205838.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".