SynthesisArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026
The effectiveness of self-management intervention on quality of life and health outcomes in patients with non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current empirical evidence (2019-2024).
Synthesis in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-management empowers non-communicable disease (NCDs) patients to improve health, enhance quality of life (QoL), and reduce adverse outcomes. This study aims to synthesize empirical evidence on the effectiveness of self-management interventions in improving QoL and health outcomes among patients with NCDs.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and OVID databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published between 2019 and 2024. Studies were included if they evaluated the impact of self-management interventions on QoL among adults with NCDs using randomized controlled trials or experimental designs. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled standardized mean differences using Hedges' g. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I² statistic. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessments were also conducted.
resultsEleven studies involving 1,591 participants were included in the systematic review, and 10 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated that self-management interventions significantly improved QoL compared with standard care (Hedges' g = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.34-0.81). Moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I² = 69.3%). Subgroup analysis indicated that intervention effects varied by country income level, with larger effect sizes observed in upper-middle-income countries. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings. Funnel plot inspection and Egger's test indicated no statistically significant evidence of publication bias.
conclusionSelf-management interventions are associated with significant improvements in QoL among individuals with NCDs. These findings highlight the importance of integrating structured self-management programs into chronic disease care. Given the observed heterogeneity across studies, future research should focus on standardized intervention components, rigorous study designs, and evaluation across diverse healthcare settings to better understand the long-term effectiveness of self-management strategies.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42458549What 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.