Effect on Glycemic, Blood Pressure, and Lipid Control according to Education Types.
10.4093/dmj.2011.35.6.580
- Author:
Mi Ju CHOI
1
;
Seung Hyun YOO
;
Kum Rae KIM
;
Yoo Mi BAE
;
Sun Hee AHN
;
Seong Shin KIM
;
Seong Ah MIN
;
Jin Sun CHOI
;
Seung Eun LEE
;
Yeo Jin MOON
;
Eun Jung RHEE
;
Cheol Young PARK
;
Won Young LEE
;
Ki Won OH
;
Sung Woo PARK
;
Sun Woo KIM
Author Information
1. Diabetes Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Achievement;
Diabetes mellitus;
Education
- MeSH:
Achievement;
Blood Glucose;
Blood Pressure;
Cholesterol;
Cholesterol, LDL;
Diabetes Mellitus;
Fasting;
Follow-Up Studies;
Glucose;
Hemoglobins;
Humans;
Lipoproteins;
Reinforcement (Psychology);
Self Care
- From:Diabetes & Metabolism Journal
2011;35(6):580-586
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education and reinforcement are important for effective management of the disease. We investigated the effectiveness of interactive small-group education on glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid levels. METHODS: For this study, 207 type 2 diabetes patients with suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c levels >6.5%) were enrolled. The conventional education group received an existing education program from April to November in 2006, and the interactive education group received a new small-group education program from December 2006 to July 2007. The two groups were comparatively analyzed for changes in blood sugar, glycated hemoglobin, lipid, and blood pressure at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months and the proportion of patients achieving target goals at 12 months. RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, HbA1c levels in the interactive education group were significantly lower than in the conventional education group (6.7% vs. 6.4%, P<0.001). Fasting and 2 hour postprandial glucose concentrations, total cholesterol, and low density lipoprotein cholesterol were significantly lower in the interactive education group than in the conventional education group. The proportion of patients that achieved target goals was significantly higher in the interactive education group. CONCLUSION: The small-group educational method improved and re-established the existing group educational method. This finding suggests that the importance of education appears to be related to the method by which it is received rather than the education itself. Thus, the use of small-group educational methods to supplement existing educational methods established for diverse age levels should be considered in the future.
