53-LB: Availability of Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support Programs in United States Counties

Abstract Background The aim of this work was to develop a National Evaluation Framework to facilitate the standardization of delivery, quality, reporting, and evaluation of diabetes education and support programs delivered throughout Australia through the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS). The NDSS is funded by the Australian Government, and provides access to diabetes information, education, support, and subsidized product across diverse settings in each state and territory of Australia through seven independent service-providers. This article reports the approach undertaken to develop the Framework. Methods A participatory approach was undertaken, focused on adopting nationally consistent outcomes and indicators, nominating objectives and measurement tools, specifying evaluation processes, and developing quality standards. Existing programs were classified based on related, overarching indicators enabling the adoption of a tiered system of evaluation. Results Two outcomes (i.e., improved clinical, reduced cost) and four indicators (i.e., improved knowledge and understanding, self-management, self-determination, psychosocial adjustment) were adopted from the Eigenmann and Colagiuri national consensus position statement for diabetes education. This allowed for the identification of objectives (i.e., improved empowerment, reduced distress, autonomy supportive program delivery, consumer satisfaction) and related measurement instruments. Programs were categorized as comprehensive, topic-specific, or basic education, with comprehensive programs allocated to receive the highest-level of evaluation. Twelve quality standards were developed, with existing programs tested against those standards. Based on the results of testing, two comprehensive (OzDAFNE for people with type 1 diabetes, DESMOND for people with type 2 diabetes), and eight topic-specific (CarbSmart, ShopSmart, MonitorSmart, FootSmart, MedSmart, Living with Insulin, Insulin Pump Workshop, Ready Set Go – Let’s Move) structured diabetes self-management education and support programs were nominated for national delivery. Conclusions The National Evaluation Framework has facilitated consistency of program quality, delivery, and evaluation of programs delivered by multiple service providers across diverse contexts. The Framework could be applied by other service providers who facilitate multiple diabetes education and support programs and could be adapted for use in other chronic disease populations where education and support are indicated.

Download Full-text

Sociodemographic Factors Associated With Engagement in Diabetes Self-management Education Among People With Diabetes in the United States

Public Health Reports ◽

10.1177/0033354918794935 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 133 (6) ◽

pp. 685-691 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Eric Adjei Boakye ◽

Amanda Varble ◽

Rebecca Rojek ◽

Olivia Peavler ◽

Anna K. Trainer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

High School ◽

Health Insurance ◽

Household Income ◽

Management Education ◽

The United States ◽

Self Management ◽

School Graduate ◽

Annual Household Income ◽

Management Behaviors

Objective: Research outside the United States shows that certain subgroups of patients (eg, those who are older, male, of low socioeconomic status, and uninsured) are less likely than others to report receiving diabetes self-management education (DSME); however, less is known about DSME uptake in the United States. We examined sociodemographic, patient, and behavioral characteristics associated with DSME in a nationally representative sample. Methods: We analyzed data from the 2011-2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for 84 179 adults who self-identified receiving a diagnosis of diabetes. We constructed weighted, multivariate logistic regression models to examine the associations between DSME and sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, and annual household income), patient characteristics (body mass index, having a regular provider, health insurance status, health status, and insulin use), and self-management behaviors (home foot examination, home blood glucose testing, and physical activity). Results: More than half (n = 45 557, 53.7% [weighted]) of respondents reported engaging in DSME. Compared with non-Hispanic white adults, non-Hispanic black adults were more likely to engage in DSME (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.29). Respondents were less likely to engage in DSME if they were male (aOR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91) or Hispanic (aOR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92), were a high school graduate (but no college; aOR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78) or less than a high school graduate (aOR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.59), had an annual household income of $15 000-$24 999 (aOR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89) or <$15 000 (aOR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.78), or had no health insurance (aOR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98). DSME was significantly associated with all 3 self-management behaviors. Conclusions: Increasing public health interventions aimed at educating people with diabetes about self-management could improve outcomes.

Download Full-text