Effect of structured education program on physiological and psychosocial outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients: A randomized controlled trial

Qianqian Zhou, Xiaorong Liu, Jianing Li, Jinlan Yao, Qingqing Lou
{"title":"Effect of structured education program on physiological and psychosocial outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients: A randomized controlled trial","authors":"Qianqian Zhou, Xiaorong Liu, Jianing Li, Jinlan Yao, Qingqing Lou","doi":"10.4103/jin.jin_09_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study was conducted to compare the effect of structured education program versus traditional diabetes education on insulin injection technique as well as physiologically and psychosocially related outcomes in adults with Type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods: This study was a randomized controlled trial. Totally, 71 Type 2 diabetes patients of using the insulin pen were enrolled and randomly divided into the intervention group (n = 36) and the control group (n = 35) according to random number table method. Patients in the intervention group received structured education program, while patients in the control group received traditional diabetes education. The levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood glucose, and lipids were monitored before and 3 months after intervention, and the insulin injection techniques, diabetes distress, and diabetes self-management skills between groups were assessed after 3 months. Results: Finally, 65 participants (intervention group: n = 33, control group: n = 32) finished the study. After the intervention, HbA1c was lower (7.42 ± 0.80 vs. 8.35 ± 1.40, P = 0.002), fasting blood glucose (FBG) was lower (7.27 ± 1.06 vs. 9.40 ± 3.16, P < 0.001), and postprandial blood glucose (PBG) was lower (10.33 ± 2.20 vs. 12.77 ± 4.94, P = 0.012) in the intervention group than in the control group. No statistically significance was identified between the two groups in scores of Diabetes Distress Scale and summary of diabetes self-care activities. Conclusion: Patients with Type 2 diabetes received structured education program, with greater improvements achieved in HbA1c, FBG, PBG, and measures about insulin injection techniques compared to the traditional education group, but there was no significant difference in diabetes distress or self-management behavior between groups.","PeriodicalId":34651,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrative Nursing","volume":"7 1","pages":"72 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Integrative Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jin.jin_09_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to compare the effect of structured education program versus traditional diabetes education on insulin injection technique as well as physiologically and psychosocially related outcomes in adults with Type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods: This study was a randomized controlled trial. Totally, 71 Type 2 diabetes patients of using the insulin pen were enrolled and randomly divided into the intervention group (n = 36) and the control group (n = 35) according to random number table method. Patients in the intervention group received structured education program, while patients in the control group received traditional diabetes education. The levels of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood glucose, and lipids were monitored before and 3 months after intervention, and the insulin injection techniques, diabetes distress, and diabetes self-management skills between groups were assessed after 3 months. Results: Finally, 65 participants (intervention group: n = 33, control group: n = 32) finished the study. After the intervention, HbA1c was lower (7.42 ± 0.80 vs. 8.35 ± 1.40, P = 0.002), fasting blood glucose (FBG) was lower (7.27 ± 1.06 vs. 9.40 ± 3.16, P < 0.001), and postprandial blood glucose (PBG) was lower (10.33 ± 2.20 vs. 12.77 ± 4.94, P = 0.012) in the intervention group than in the control group. No statistically significance was identified between the two groups in scores of Diabetes Distress Scale and summary of diabetes self-care activities. Conclusion: Patients with Type 2 diabetes received structured education program, with greater improvements achieved in HbA1c, FBG, PBG, and measures about insulin injection techniques compared to the traditional education group, but there was no significant difference in diabetes distress or self-management behavior between groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结构化教育计划对2型糖尿病患者生理和社会心理结局的影响:一项随机对照试验
目的:本研究旨在比较结构化教育计划与传统糖尿病教育对成人2型糖尿病患者胰岛素注射技术以及生理和心理社会相关结局的影响。材料与方法:本研究为随机对照试验。共纳入71例使用胰岛素笔的2型糖尿病患者,按随机数字表法随机分为干预组(n = 36)和对照组(n = 35)。干预组患者接受结构化教育,对照组患者接受传统的糖尿病教育。监测干预前和干预后3个月的糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、血糖和血脂水平,3个月后评估两组胰岛素注射技术、糖尿病窘迫和糖尿病自我管理技能。结果:最终有65名参与者(干预组:n = 33,对照组:n = 32)完成研究。干预后,干预组HbA1c低于对照组(7.42±0.80比8.35±1.40,P = 0.002),空腹血糖(FBG)低于对照组(7.27±1.06比9.40±3.16,P < 0.001),餐后血糖(PBG)低于对照组(10.33±2.20比12.77±4.94,P = 0.012)。两组在糖尿病困扰量表得分和糖尿病自我护理活动总结得分上无统计学意义。结论:2型糖尿病患者接受了结构化的教育方案,与传统教育组相比,在HbA1c、FBG、PBG、胰岛素注射技术方面均有较大改善,但在糖尿病困扰和自我管理行为方面组间无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Integrative Nursing
Journal of Integrative Nursing Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Heart failure symptom burden, dietary intake, and inflammation: An integrative review of the literature. Prevalence of social media addiction among nursing sstudents Intensive care environment: Perspective of relatives of critically ill patient sustained by health technology Technical operation specification for cupping therapy Impact of designed infection control educational program on nurses' knowledge and compliance with standard precautions at maternity hospitals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1