SynthesisAmerican journal of health promotion : AJHP2024
Process Evaluations of Diabetes Self-Management Programs: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Synthesis in American journal of health promotion : AJHP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The application of the RE-AIM and PRISM framework to process evaluations of diabetes self-management programs: a systematic review and secondary analysis of literature.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo 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).
resultsSixty-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.
conclusionFuture 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.