共同决策模式对糖尿病高危人群管理的影响。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Qiu-Shi Wang, Xiao-Dong Yue, Yan Ma, Zhi-Guang Zhou, Fen Li, Yi-Ling Zhang, Wei-Yu Duan
{"title":"共同决策模式对糖尿病高危人群管理的影响。","authors":"Qiu-Shi Wang, Xiao-Dong Yue, Yan Ma, Zhi-Guang Zhou, Fen Li, Yi-Ling Zhang, Wei-Yu Duan","doi":"10.1111/jep.14158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A shared decision-making (SDM) model-based intervention programme was implemented for a population at high risk for diabetes to explore its effectiveness in intervening with blood glucose levels in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred residents were selected according to the principle of voluntary participation and divided into the intervention group (n = 50) and the control group (n = 50) by using multistage cluster sampling. The control group received only brief diabetes knowledge education through a disease brochure issued by the hospital; the intervention group implemented a SDM model based on large classroom and individualised education for 4 months. Univariate analysis and generalised estimating equation fitting model were used to analyse the effect of intervention on blood glucose parameters in the study subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Univariate analysis showed that after 4 months of intervention, fasting blood glucose was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (5.57 ± 0.56 vs. 6.07 ± 0.77, F = 45.721, p < 0.001); glycosylated hemoglobin was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (5.91 ± 0.28 vs. 6.02 ± 0.24, F = 25.998, p < 0.001), decreased by 0.26% in the intervention group and increased by 0.01% in the control group. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin in the intervention group decreased to different extents from baseline. The generalised estimation equation was fitted with the intervention programme, gender, hypertension, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, age, waist circumference, body mass index, baseline fasting blood glucose, and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin as independent variables, and fasting blood glucose and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin as dependent variables. Results showed that compared with the control group, fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin levels were significantly different between the two groups (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Applying an intervention programme based on SDM model to people at high risk of diabetes can improve patients' adherence to self-management and establish a good lifestyle, thus contributing to their good glycemic control.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of shared decision-making model on the management of diabetes high-risk groups.\",\"authors\":\"Qiu-Shi Wang, Xiao-Dong Yue, Yan Ma, Zhi-Guang Zhou, Fen Li, Yi-Ling Zhang, Wei-Yu Duan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.14158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A shared decision-making (SDM) model-based intervention programme was implemented for a population at high risk for diabetes to explore its effectiveness in intervening with blood glucose levels in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred residents were selected according to the principle of voluntary participation and divided into the intervention group (n = 50) and the control group (n = 50) by using multistage cluster sampling. The control group received only brief diabetes knowledge education through a disease brochure issued by the hospital; the intervention group implemented a SDM model based on large classroom and individualised education for 4 months. Univariate analysis and generalised estimating equation fitting model were used to analyse the effect of intervention on blood glucose parameters in the study subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Univariate analysis showed that after 4 months of intervention, fasting blood glucose was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (5.57 ± 0.56 vs. 6.07 ± 0.77, F = 45.721, p < 0.001); glycosylated hemoglobin was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (5.91 ± 0.28 vs. 6.02 ± 0.24, F = 25.998, p < 0.001), decreased by 0.26% in the intervention group and increased by 0.01% in the control group. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin in the intervention group decreased to different extents from baseline. The generalised estimation equation was fitted with the intervention programme, gender, hypertension, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, age, waist circumference, body mass index, baseline fasting blood glucose, and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin as independent variables, and fasting blood glucose and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin as dependent variables. Results showed that compared with the control group, fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin levels were significantly different between the two groups (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Applying an intervention programme based on SDM model to people at high risk of diabetes can improve patients' adherence to self-management and establish a good lifestyle, thus contributing to their good glycemic control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14158\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14158","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的在糖尿病高危人群中实施以共同决策(SDM)模式为基础的干预计划,探讨其对干预该人群血糖水平的有效性:根据自愿参与的原则,采用多阶段群组抽样法选出 100 名居民,分为干预组(50 人)和对照组(50 人)。对照组仅通过医院发放的疾病手册接受简短的糖尿病知识教育;干预组实施基于大课堂和个体化教育的 SDM 模式,为期 4 个月。采用单变量分析和广义估计方程拟合模型分析干预对研究对象血糖指标的影响:结果:单变量分析表明,经过 4 个月的干预,干预组的空腹血糖低于对照组(5.57 ± 0.56 vs. 6.07 ± 0.77,F = 45.721,p 结论:干预对血糖参数的影响是显著的:对糖尿病高危人群实施基于 SDM 模式的干预计划,可提高患者自我管理的依从性,建立良好的生活方式,从而促进其血糖的良好控制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of shared decision-making model on the management of diabetes high-risk groups.

Objective: A shared decision-making (SDM) model-based intervention programme was implemented for a population at high risk for diabetes to explore its effectiveness in intervening with blood glucose levels in this population.

Methods: One hundred residents were selected according to the principle of voluntary participation and divided into the intervention group (n = 50) and the control group (n = 50) by using multistage cluster sampling. The control group received only brief diabetes knowledge education through a disease brochure issued by the hospital; the intervention group implemented a SDM model based on large classroom and individualised education for 4 months. Univariate analysis and generalised estimating equation fitting model were used to analyse the effect of intervention on blood glucose parameters in the study subjects.

Results: Univariate analysis showed that after 4 months of intervention, fasting blood glucose was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (5.57 ± 0.56 vs. 6.07 ± 0.77, F = 45.721, p < 0.001); glycosylated hemoglobin was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (5.91 ± 0.28 vs. 6.02 ± 0.24, F = 25.998, p < 0.001), decreased by 0.26% in the intervention group and increased by 0.01% in the control group. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin in the intervention group decreased to different extents from baseline. The generalised estimation equation was fitted with the intervention programme, gender, hypertension, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, age, waist circumference, body mass index, baseline fasting blood glucose, and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin as independent variables, and fasting blood glucose and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin as dependent variables. Results showed that compared with the control group, fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin levels were significantly different between the two groups (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Applying an intervention programme based on SDM model to people at high risk of diabetes can improve patients' adherence to self-management and establish a good lifestyle, thus contributing to their good glycemic control.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信