15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      State of Diabetes Self-Management Education in the European Union Member States and Non-EU Countries: The Diabetes Literacy Project

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is considered essential for improving the prevention and care of diabetes through empowering patients to increase agency in their own health and care processes. However, existing evidence regarding DSME in the EU Member States (EU MS) is insufficient to develop an EU-wide strategy.

          Objectives

          This study presents the state of DSME in the 28 EU MS and contrasts it with 3 non-EU countries with comparable Human Development Index score: Israel, Taiwan, and the USA (ITU). Because type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) disproportionately affects minority and low-income groups, we paid particular attention to health literacy aspects of DSME for vulnerable populations.

          Methods

          Data from multiple stakeholders involved in diabetes care were collected from Feb 2014 to Jan 2015 using an online Diabetes Literacy Survey (DLS). Of the 379 respondents (249 from EU MS and 130 from ITU), most were people with diabetes (33% in the EU MS, 15% in ITU) and care providers (47% and 72%). These data were supplemented by an expert survey (ES) administered to 30 key informants.

          Results

          Access to DSME varies greatly in the EU MS: an average of 29% (range 21% to 50%) of respondents report DSME programs are tailored for people with limited literacy, educational attainment, and language skills versus 63% in ITU. More than half of adult T2DM patients and children/adolescents participate in DSME in EU MS; in ITU, participation of T1DM patients and older people is lower. Prioritization of DSME (6.1 ± 2.8 out of 10) and the level of satisfaction with the current state of DSME (5.0 ± 2.4 out of 10) in the EU MS were comparable with ITU.

          Conclusion

          Variation in availability and organization of DSME in the EU MS presents a clear rationale for developing an EU-wide diabetes strategy to improve treatment and care for people with diabetes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effectiveness of Self-Management Training in Type 2 Diabetes: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

          To systematically review the effectiveness of self-management training in type 2 diabetes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Take action to prevent diabetes--the IMAGE toolkit for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe.

            When we ask people what they value most, health is usually top of the list. While effective care is available for many chronic diseases, the fact remains that for the patient, the tax payer and the whole of society: prevention is better than cure. Diabetes and its complications are a serious threat to the survival and well-being of an increasing number of people. It is predicted that one in ten Europeans aged 20-79 will have developed diabetes by 2030. Once a disease of old age, diabetes is now common among adults of all ages and is beginning to affect adolescents and even children. Diabetes accounts for up to 18 % of total healthcare expenditure in Europe. The good news is that diabetes is preventable. Compelling evidence shows that the onset of diabetes can be prevented or delayed greatly in individuals at high risk (people with impaired glucose regulation). Clinical research has shown a reduction in risk of developing diabetes of over 50 % following relatively modest changes in lifestyle that include adopting a healthy diet, increasing physical activity, and maintaining a healthy body weight. These results have since been reproduced in real-world prevention programmes. Even a delay of a few years in the progression to diabetes is expected to reduce diabetes-related complications, such as heart, kidney and eye disease and, consequently, to reduce the cost to society. A comprehensive approach to diabetes prevention should combine population based primary prevention with programmes targeted at those who are at high risk. This approach should take account of the local circumstances and diversity within modern society (e.g. social inequalities). The challenge goes beyond the healthcare system. We need to encourage collaboration across many different sectors: education providers, non-governmental organisations, the food industry, the media, urban planners and politicians all have a very important role to play. Small changes in lifestyle will bring big changes in health. Through joint efforts, more people will be reached. The time to act is now. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart-New York.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mediating the effect of self-care management intervention in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of 47 randomised controlled trials.

              To perform a meta-analysis assessing the effects of self-care management interventions in improving glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes by analysing the impact of different study characteristics on the effect size. A literature search in eight scientific databases up to November 2007 included original studies of randomised controlled trials involving adult patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and evaluating a self-care management intervention. The 47 included studies yielded 7677 participants. The analysis showed a 0.36% (95% CI 0.21-0.51) improvement in glycaemic control in people who received self-care management treatment. In the univariate meta-regression sample size (effect size 0.42%, p=0.007) and follow-up period (effect size 0.49%, p=0.017) were identified to have significant effect on the effect size in favour of small studies and short follow-up. For type of intervention and duration of intervention there was a non-significant effect on effect size in favour of educational techniques and short interventions. In type 2 diabetes, there are improvements in glycaemic control in people who receive self-care management treatment with a small advantage to intervention with an educational approach. Further research on frequency and duration of intervention may provide useful information to identify the most effective regime. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Diabetes Res
                J Diabetes Res
                JDR
                Journal of Diabetes Research
                Hindawi
                2314-6745
                2314-6753
                2018
                17 April 2018
                : 2018
                : 1467171
                Affiliations
                1Medical Clinic 3, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
                2Institut de Recherche en Sciences Psychologiques, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
                3Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
                4College of Business, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
                5Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, Israel
                6Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
                7Gesundheit Österreich GmbH (Austrian Public Health Institute), Vienna, Austria
                8Department of International Health, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
                9Ministry of Health & Welfare, National Taipei Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan
                10Center for Vulnerable Populations, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
                11Center for Evidence-based Healthcare, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Maria Pia Francescato

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8348-487X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0525-7254
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7221-7327
                Article
                10.1155/2018/1467171
                5932431
                74e37c94-cab5-4635-8a35-689cce4d650f
                Copyright © 2018 Henna Riemenschneider et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 4 October 2017
                : 21 February 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: European Commission
                Award ID: 306186
                Categories
                Research Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article