2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. Methods The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. Results Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. Conclusion Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

This article was copublished in Diabetes Care 2017;40:1409-1419 and The Diabetes Educator 2017;43:449-464 and is reprinted with permission. The previous version of this article, also copublished in Diabetes Care and The Diabetes Educator, can be found at Diabetes Care 2012;35:2393-2401 (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1707).

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. Methods The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. Results Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. Conclusion Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

Are benefits from diabetes self-management education sustained?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether outcomes from diabetes self-management education for patients with suboptimal control were sustained. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of 623 adults with type 2 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) > 7% assigned to receive conventional individual education (IE), group education (GE) using US Diabetes Conversation Maps, or usual care (UC) with no education. METHODS: A1C tests, Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID), Diabetes Self-Efficacy (DES), Recommended Food Score (RFS), physical activity, and medication use were quantified at baseline and 1 year of follow-up through electronic health records and quarterly mailed surveys. Short-term (mean 6.8 months) and long-term (12.8 months) outcomes were evaluated using linear mixed models. In addition, follow-up trajectories were plotted in a random effects generalized additive model with smooth splines. RESULTS: Compared with UC, IE resulted in long-term improved DES and PAID scores (DES, +.11, P = .03 and PAID, -2.94, P = .04), but not significantly improved long-term RFS or physical activity change. The A1C trajectory declined more steeply in IE than GE and UC for the first 150 days post randomization. However, by 250 days, there was no treatment group A1C difference. The model fit likelihood ratio test for A1C intervention trends was significant for 3 distinct non-linear trajectories (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional IE (but not GE) resulted in significant and sustained improvements in self-efficacy and reduced diabetes distress compared with UC, but short-term improvements in A1C, nutrition, and physical activity were not sustained. Patients may need ongoing reinforcement to achieve lasting behavioral change and glucose control.

Comparative effectiveness of patient education methods for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Group education for patients with suboptimally controlled diabetes has not been rigorously studied. METHODS: A total of 623 adults from Minnesota and New Mexico with type 2 diabetes and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) concentrations of 7% or higher were randomized to (1) group education (using the US Diabetes Conversation Map program), (2) individual education, or (3) usual care (UC; ie, no assigned education). Both education methods covered content as needed to meet national standards for diabetes self-management education and were delivered through accredited programs from 2008 to 2009. General linear mixed-model methods assessed patient-level changes between treatment groups in mean HbA(1c) levels from baseline to follow-up at 6.8 months. Secondary outcomes included mean change in general health status (Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID), Diabetes Self-Efficacy (DES-SF), Recommended Food Score (RFS), and Physical Activity (PA, min/wk). RESULTS: Mean HbA(1c) concentration decreased in all groups but significantly more with individual (-0.51%) than group education (-0.27%) (P = .01) and UC (-0.24%) (P = .01). The proportion of subjects with follow-up HbA(1c) concentration lower than 7% was greater for individual education (21.2%) than for group (13.9%) and UC (12.8%) (P = .03). Compared with UC, individual education (but not group) improved SF-12 physical component score (+1.88) (P = .04), PA (+42.95 min/wk) (P = .03), and RFS (+0.63) (P = .05). Compared with group education, individual education reduced PAID (-3.62) (P = .02) and increased self-efficacy (+0.1) (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Individual education for patients with established suboptimally controlled diabetes resulted in better glucose control outcomes than did group education using Conversation Maps. There was also a trend toward better psychosocial and behavioral outcomes with individual education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00652509.