Comparative Effects of Diabetes Self‐Management Programs on Type 2 Diabetes Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACTAimsThis systematic review and network meta‐analysis compared the effects of various diabetes self‐management programs: Diabetes Self‐Management Education (DSME), Diabetes Self‐Management Support (DSMS), and Diabetes Self‐Management Education and Support (DSMES).MethodsWe searched four electronic databases for eligible articles up to March 1, 2023. Only randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of DSME, DSMS, or DSMES on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level, fasting blood glucose (FBG), total cholesterol (TC), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in adults with type 2 diabetes were included. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was used to assess each study quality, and Confidence in Network Meta‐Analysis was applied to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Data were pooled with a random‐effects model under a frequentist framework.ResultsA total of 108 studies encompassing 17,735 participants (mean age 57.4 years) were analysed. DSMES, compared with usual care, significantly reduced HbA1c level (mean difference = −0.61%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.74 to −0.49; certainty of evidence = moderate), FBG (−23.33 mg/dL; −31.33 to −15.34; high), TC (−5.62 mg/dL; −8.69 to −2.55; high), SBP (−3.05 mmHg; −5.20 to −0.91; high), and DBP (−2.15 mmHg; −3.36 to −0.95; high). Compared with DSME, DSMES showed significantly greater improvements in HbA1c levels (−0.23%; −0.40 to −0.07; high) and DBP (−1.82 mmHg; −3.47 to −0.17; high). DSMES was ranked as the top treatment for improving diabetes clinical outcomes (0.82–0.97) in people with type 2 diabetes.ConclusionsDSMES, in people with type 2 diabetes, yields the greatest improvement in the key clinical outcomes of HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, and blood pressure levels. Healthcare providers should incorporate the DSMES approach into their daily care routines. Approximately 30% of the studies reviewed raised some concerns about their quality, underscoring the need for high‐quality studies in this area.