Evidence mapPaperPMID 42344021Full record

ReviewBMJ public health2026

Power Within: a meta-analysis of the roles of self-efficacy in type 2 diabetes self-care and glycaemic control.

Kenni Wojujutari Ajele, Erhabor Sunday Idemudia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kenni Wojujutari AjeleSocial Sciences, North-West University Faculty of Humanities, Mafikeng, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1796-4848
Erhabor Sunday IdemudiaFaculty of Humanities, North-West University, Mafikeng, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-efficacy is a critical psychological factor in managing type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet findings across populations and measurement tools remain inconsistent. This meta-analysis investigates the associations between self-efficacy, self-care behaviours and glycaemic control (HbA1c), accounting for diabetes duration, geographic region and the type of self-efficacy scale used. A systematic search of six databases from 2007 to 2024 identified studies examining self-efficacy in relation to self-care and HbA1c in adults with T2D. Random effects models were used to pool data from 62 studies (n=19 231). Subgroup analyses explored differences by diabetes duration, global region, and measurement tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² and τ² statistics. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots, Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method. Self-efficacy was significantly associated with better self-care behaviour (r=0.44; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.51, p<0.001) and lower HbA1c (r=-0.27; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.17, p<0.001). Diabetes-specific self-efficacy measures yielded the strongest correlation with self-care (r=0.50; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59). Stronger associations were observed in participants with shorter diabetes duration (r=0.51) and in low-income countries in East Asia (HbA1c: r=-0.34; 95% CI -0.49 to -0.17). Egger's test showed no significant publication bias (p=0.21). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of findings despite high heterogeneity. Self-efficacy is consistently linked to improved self-care and HbA1c in T2D. Targeted interventions that enhance diabetes-specific self-efficacy, particularly early in the disease and in low-resource settings, may significantly improve diabetes outcomes globally. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024595997.

Indexed as

Community HealthHealth PersonnelMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID42344021
PMCPMC13289326

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.