Process Evaluations of Diabetes Self-Management Programs: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Author:

Nsobundu Chinelo12ORCID,Nmadu Yeka W.3ORCID,Wagle Nikita Sandeep4,Foster Margaret J.5,McKyer Ellisa Lisako Jones6,Sherman Ledric7ORCID,Ory Marcia G.8,Burdine James (Jim) N.9

Affiliation:

1. Center for Community Health & Aging, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

2. School of Medicine, St George’s University, St George’s, Grenada

3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine- Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA

4. Population Informatics Lab, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

5. Department of Medical Education, Texas A&M College of Medicine, College Station, TX, USA

6. Vice Dean Faculty Affairs & Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Alice L. Walton School of Medicine, Bentonville, AR, USA

7. Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

8. Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

9. Department of Health Behavior, Director of the Center for Community Health & Aging, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Abstract

Objective To conduct a systematic review of process evaluations (PEs) of diabetes self-management programs (DSMPs). Data Source An electronic search using Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (Ensco), Academic Search (Ebsco), and APA PsycInfo (Ebsco). Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Peer-reviewed, empirical quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method studies were included if they (1) were a traditional, group-based DSMP, (2) involved adults at least 18 years with T1DM or T2DM, (3) were a stand-alone or embedded PE, and (4) published in English. Data Extraction The following process evaluation outcomes were extracted: fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, reach, recruitment, retention, and context. Additional items were extracted, (eg, process evaluation type, data collection methods; theories; frameworks or conceptual models used to guide the process evaluation, and etc). Data Synthesis Due to heterogeneity across studies, studies were synthesized qualitatively (narratively). Results Sixty-eight studies (k) in 78 articles (n) (k = 68; n = 78) were included. Most were mixed methods of low quality. Studies were typically integrated into outcome evaluations vs being stand-alone, lacked theoretical approaches to guide them, and incorporated limited outcomes such as dose received, reach, and retention. Conclusion Future research should 1) implement stand-alone theoretically grounded PE studies and 2) provide a shared understanding of standardized guidelines to conduct PEs. This will allow public health practitioners and researchers to assess and compare the quality of different programs to be implemented.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3