TY - JOUR
T1 - Process Evaluations of Diabetes Self-Management Programs
T2 - A Systematic Review of the Literature
AU - Nsobundu, Chinelo
AU - Nmadu, Yeka W.
AU - Wagle, Nikita Sandeep
AU - Foster, Margaret J.
AU - McKyer, Ellisa Lisako Jones
AU - Sherman, Ledric
AU - Ory, Marcia G.
AU - Burdine, James (Jim) N.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/4/22
Y1 - 2024/4/22
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - diabetes
KW - group-based programs
KW - implementation
KW - process evaluation
KW - self-management
KW - traditional
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85191031625&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85191031625&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/08901171241238554
DO - 10.1177/08901171241238554
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85191031625
SN - 0890-1171
VL - 38
SP - 1048
EP - 1067
JO - American Journal of Health Promotion
JF - American Journal of Health Promotion
IS - 7
ER -