IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0310338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diabetes self-management education programs: Results from a nationwide population-based study on characteristics of participants, rating of programs and reasons for non-participation

Author

Listed:
  • Solveig Weise
  • Yong Du
  • Christin Heidemann
  • Jens Baumert
  • Thomas Frese
  • Marcus Heise

Abstract

Objective: Population-based studies of reasons for not participating in diabetes self-management education (DSME) are scarce. Therefore, we investigated what sociodemographic and disease-related factors are associated with participation in DSME, the reasons for not participating in DSME and how participants evaluate DSME. Research design and methods: We used data from the nationwide survey “Disease knowledge and information needs–Diabetes mellitus 2017”, which included a total of 1396 participants diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (diabetes; n = 394 DSME-participants, n = 1002 DSME-never-participants). Analyses used weighted logistic or multinominal regression analyses with bivariate and multivariable approaches. Results: Participants were more likely to attend DSME if they had a medium (OR 1.82 [95%CI 1.21–2.73]),or high (OR 2.04 [95%CI 1.30–3.21]) level of education, had type 1 diabetes (OR 2.46 [1.24–4.90]) and insulin treatment (OR 1.96 [95%CI 1.33–2.90]). Participants were less likely to attend DSME if they lived in East Germany (OR 0.57 [95%CI 0.39–0.83]), had diabetes for >2 to 5 years (OR 0.52 [95%CI 0.31–0.88] compared to >5 years), did not agree that diabetes is a lifelong disease (OR 0.30 [95%CI 0.15–0.62], had never been encouraged by their physician to attend DSME (OR 0.19 [95%CI 0.13–0.27]) and were not familiar with disease management programs (OR 0.67 [95%CI 0.47–0.96]). The main reasons for non-participation were participant’s personal perception that DSME was not necessary (26.6%), followed by lack of recommendation from treating physician (25.7%) and lack of information on DSME (20.7%). DSME-participants found DSME more helpful if they had a medium educational level (OR 2.06 [95%CI 1.10–3.89] ref: low level of education) and less helpful if they were never encouraged by their treatment team (OR 0.46 [95%CI 0.26–0.82]). Discussion: Professionals treating persons with diabetes should encourage their patients to attend DSME and underline that diabetes is a lifelong disease. Overall, the majority of DSME participants rated DSME as helpful.

Suggested Citation

  • Solveig Weise & Yong Du & Christin Heidemann & Jens Baumert & Thomas Frese & Marcus Heise, 2024. "Diabetes self-management education programs: Results from a nationwide population-based study on characteristics of participants, rating of programs and reasons for non-participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310338
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310338
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310338&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0310338?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0095035 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.