Medication adherence is a critical aspect of managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and achieving optimal clinical outcomes. Mobile app-based interventions have emerged as a promising tool to enhance adherence and glycemic control in T2DM patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mobile app interventions in improving medication adherence and glycated hemoglobin among T2DM patients. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies published between September 2018 and September 2023. Studies were included if they were published in English and investigated the effectiveness of mobile apps in enhancing medication adherence among patients with T2DM. Studies were excluded if they included additional interventions, such as electronic pillboxes, phone calls, or SMS text messages, or if they focused on populations with chronic illnesses other than T2DM. Five studies involving 527 participants from diverse geographic locations were included in the review. The findings from the included studies show that mobile-based app interventions can significantly improve medication adherence in patients with T2DM. From the included studies, the mean HbA1c change for the intervention group was -0.664 (95%CI -0.823 to -0.506), while the mean change in HbA1c for the control group was -0.103 (95%CI -0.305 to 0.099). Studies have demonstrated the potential of mobile app-based interventions to enhance medication adherence and improve glycemic control in T2DM; further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of these interventions.

BACKGROUND: Managing the care regimen for Type 1 Diabetes is challenging for emerging adults, as they take on greater responsibility for self-management. A diverse range of models of care have been implemented to improve safety and quality of care during transition between paediatric and adult services. However, evidence about acceptability and effectiveness of these is limited. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence for transition models and their components, examine the health related and psychosocial outcomes, and to identify determinants associated with the implementation of person-centred models of transition care. METHOD: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus. Peer reviewed empirical studies that focused on T1D models of care published from 2010 to 2021 in English, reporting experimental, qualitative, mixed methods, and observational studies were included. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reported on health and psychosocial outcomes, and engagement with healthcare. Three key models of care emerged: structured transition education programs (6 studies), multidisciplinary team transition support (5 studies) and telehealth/virtual care (3 studies). Compared with usual practice, three of the six structured transition education programs led to improvements in maintenance of glycaemic control, psychological well-being, and engagement with health services. Four MDT transition care models reported improved health outcomes, and improved engagement with health services, however, three studies reported no benefit. Reduced diabetes related stress and increased patient satisfaction were reported by two studies, but three reported no benefit. Telehealth and virtual group appointments improved adherence to self-management and reduced diabetes distress but did not change health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although some health and psychosocial benefits are reported, the results were mixed. No studies reported on T1D transition model implementation outcomes such as acceptability, adoption, and appropriateness among clinicians or managers implementing these models. This gap needs to be addressed to support future adoption of successful models.

BACKGROUND: Games and game components have become a major trend in the realm of digital health research and practice as they are assumed to foster behavior change and thereby improve patient-reported and clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness of digital health interventions containing game components on behavioral, patient-reported, and clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE and PsycINFO in April 2020; updated in April 2022; and supplemented by additional searches via Google Scholar, Web of Science (which was used for forward citation tracking), and within the references of the included records. Articles were identified using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. In total, 2 reviewers independently conducted title, abstract, and full-text screening and then individually performed a critical appraisal of all the included studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2. A consensus was reached through discussion. RESULTS: Of 2325 potentially relevant titles (duplicates excluded), 10 (0.43%) randomized controlled trials were included in this review. Quality assessment revealed a high risk of bias for all randomized controlled trials except for 10% (1/10), with performance bias due to the lack of blinding being the major source of bias. There is evidence suggesting that digital health interventions containing game components can substantially improve motivation for physical activity (1/1, 100% of the studies dealing with PA motivation), exercise intensity (3/5, 60%), dietary behavior (4/4, 100%), health literacy (1/3, 33%), mental quality of life (2/2, 100%), glycated hemoglobin level (2/6, 33%), BMI (1/3, 33%), fasting plasma glucose level (1/2, 50%), waist circumference (1/1, 100%), and aerobic capacity (1/1, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Published studies indicated that digital health interventions containing game components might improve health behavior patterns, quality of life, and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the intervention types and outcomes studied were heterogeneous, and study quality was mostly low, which translates to ambiguous results. Future research should focus on sound methodology and reporting as well as on identifying game components that contribute to significant positive effects.

OBJECTIVES: Achieving glycemic control is a great challenge for young patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), especially during the transition from childhood to adulthood. As various smartphone apps have been developed to improve glycemic control in T1D, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of smartphone apps on glycemic control in young patients with T1D. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing combined usual care and smartphone app treatment to usual care alone. This meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcomes were the weighted difference in means (WMD) of HbA1c change from baseline and the person-years incidence of mild hypoglycemia or severe hypoglycemia between intervention and control groups. We assessed pooled data by use of a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of 1,190 identified studies, nine were eligible and included in our analysis (N = 748 participants). Relative to the control, using smartphone apps yielded a non-significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (WMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.05; p = 0.10) and no increased frequency of mild hypoglycemia (WMD = 1.87, 95% CI: -1.52 to 5.27; p = 0.49) or severe hypoglycemia (WMD = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.27; p = 0.80). In further subgroup analysis, compared with the recording-style app group, the auxiliary-style app group exhibited a significant reduction in HbA1c (WMD = -0.83, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.56, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The current pooled data analysis did not reveal a significant reduction in HbA1c in young patients with T1D undergoing treatment with smartphone apps and usual care in combination. However, auxiliary-style apps with insulin or carbo calculators were beneficial in reducing HbA1c.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have found that telehealth is an effective strategy for implementing interventions to improve glycemic control and other clinical outcomes for diabetes patients. However, these reviews have not meaningfully focused on Black and Hispanic patients-partly because of the lack of adequate representation of people from racial and ethnic minority groups in clinical trials. It is unclear whether telehealth interventions are effective at improving glycemic control among Black and Hispanic patients given the disproportionate number of barriers they face accessing health care. OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials that used telehealth interventions for improving glycemic control among Black and Hispanic diabetes patients. METHODS: We reviewed PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and clinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 2021. We used a narrative summary approach to describe key study characteristics and graded the quality of studies using two reviewers. The pooled net change in HbA1c values was estimated across studies using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 10 studies that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study was rated as having low bias. Telehealth interventions were primarily delivered by telephone calls, text messages, web-based portals, and virtual visits. Most interventions involved delivering diabetes self-management education. Telehealth intervention pooled across studies with a mix of Black and Hispanic participants (> 50% sample) was associated with a - 0.465 ([CI: - 0.648 to - 0.282], p = 0.000) reduction in HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest telehealth interventions are effective at improving glycemic control among Black and Hispanic diabetes patients.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a global health issue with an increasing frequency across the world and is an important disease in which medication adherence is a priority component for disease management. Several interventions are implemented to increase medication adherence in patients with type 2 DM, and telehealth interventions have become widespread thanks to technological advancements. This meta-analysis aims at reviewing the telehealth interventions applied to patients with type 2 DM and examining their effects on medication adherence. METHODS: Relevant studies published in ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PubMed from 2000 to December 2022 were searched in this meta-analysis. Their methodological quality was assessed using the Modified Jadad scale. Total score for each study ranged from 0 (low quality) to 8 (high quality). Studies with four or more were of good quality. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot and Egger regression test. Both subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed in the study. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were analyzed in this meta-analysis. All studies scored 4 or above in their methodological quality assessment and were of good quality. The combined results have shown that telehealth interventions significantly increased medication adherence in the intervention group (SMD = 0.501; 95% CI 0.231-0.771; Z = 3.63, p < 0.001). Our subgroup analysis has revealed that HbA1c value, mean age, and duration of intervention significantly affected the study results. CONCLUSION: Telehealth interventions are an effective method to increase medication adherence in patients with type 2 DM. It is recommended that telehealth interventions be expanded in clinical practices and included in disease management.

BACKGROUND: Individually designed interventions delivered through mobile health applications (mHealth apps) may be able to effectively support diabetes self-care. Our aim was to review and synthesize available evidence in the literature regarding perception of adults with type 1 diabetes on the features of mHealth apps that help promote diabetes self-care, as well as facilitators and barriers to their use. An additional aim was to review literature on changes in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the same population while using mHealth apps for diabetes self-care. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative studies focusing on adults aged 18Â years and over with type 1 diabetes in any context were included. A systematic literature search using selected databases was conducted. Data was synthesised using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We found that features of mHealth apps designed to help promote and maintain diabetes self-care could be categorized into self-care data monitoring, app display, feedback & reminders, data entry, data sharing, and additional features. Factors affecting the use of mHealth apps reported in the literature were personal factors, app design or usability factors, privacy and safety factors, or socioeconomic factors. Quality of life and diabetes distress were the most commonly reported PROMs in the included studies. CONCLUSION: We are unable to reach a conclusive result due to the heterogeneity of the included studies as well as the limited number of studies reporting on these areas among adults with type 1 diabetes. We therefore recommend further large-scale studies looking into these areas that can ultimately improve mHealth app use in type 1 diabetes self-care.

AIM: Patient education is an essential component of the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The present meta-analysis was aimed at verifying the efficacy of group-based versus individual education for self-management in patients with T2DM. DATA SYNTHESIS: A Medline and Embase search up to January 1st, 2021, was performed, including Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) with duration>6 months, enrolling patients with T2DM and comparing individual-based with group-based educational programs. The primary outcome was endpoint HbA1c; secondary endpoints were lipid profile, body weight, blood pressure, patients' adherence/knowledge, and quality of life. The weighed difference in means (WMD) and Mantel-Haenzel Odds Ratio (MH-OR), with 95% Confidence Interval (CI), were calculated. We retrieved 14 RCT. No significant between-group difference in HbA1c (WMD -0.39[-0.89; 0.09] mmol/mol, p = 0.11) was observed. At metaregression analyses, longer trial duration, higher baseline mean age and duration of diabetes, and lower baseline HbA1c were correlated with greater efficacy of group-based programs in reducing HbA1c. When analyzed separately, trials excluding insulin-treated patients showed a significant reduction of HbA1c in favor of group education. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM, group education has similar efficacy as individual education on glucose control. Group programs are associated with an improved quality of life and patients' knowledge.

INTRODUCTION: A systematic review was conducted to highlight current barriers to access-to-care for Hispanics with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHOD: PubMed and CINAHL databases (2010-2015) using PRISMA guidelines. 84 studies were identified, 12 quantitative studies were selected for review remained based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. There were five research questions: (1) What samples/settings were included? (2) What theories guided each study? (3) What were the study aims and (4) designs? (5) What barriers of access-to-care were identified? Barriers were placed into three categories set a priori. RESULTS: The word "barrier" was in one study aim. Barriers of self (92%), provider (50%), and environment (25%) were identified. Self-care behaviors (diet and exercise), individual resources (cost factors), lack of providers specializing in T2D, and environmental factors affect Hispanics with T2D access-to-care. DISCUSSION: These barriers to access underscore current importance to Hispanics with T2D. A follow-up review should be conducted as new barriers are expected to emerge.

BACKGROUND: The need for a multidisciplinary team approach to provide physical exercise, diet, behavioral change and insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment has long been recognized. However, often patients with T2DM do not have access to a multidisciplinary team. INTRODUCTION: In developing countries most patients with T2DM receive their diabetes care in the office of an internist or family practice physician or in a primary level health center with a general practitioner. Knowing the perceived barriers, attitude, facilitators, and benefits in healthcare professionals toward multidisciplinary team approach in T2DM treatment can help to facilitate implementation of multidisciplinary care in T2DM. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was performed in six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane) using different keyword combinations to identify studies describing healthcare professionals' views of multidisciplinary team care in T2DM. Textual narrative synthesis was used to analyse data. The Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies was used to assess risk of bias and transferability. RESULTS: The views of health professionals about multidisciplinary team care in T2DM were categorized into six major factors namely: working collaboratively to foster supportive relationships; strong committed organizational and team leadership; diversity in expertise, with team members tailored to local circumstances; shared goals and approaches to ensure consistency of message; clear and open communication with the team and with patients; and the patient at the center of decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: There is a huge gap in shared roles among health professionals in T2DM therapy. Hence, there is need for allied health professionals such as physiotherapists, dieticians, and psychologists with expertise in diabetes to explore primary healthcare. Barriers and facilitators for successful integration of multidisciplinary team, seamlessly cut across three hierarchal levels namely, health management; health professionals; and diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVES: The diabetes self-management education (DSME) program is one of the strategies to maintain healthy behaviors. Nevertheless, limited evidence has been systematically evaluated about DSME integrated with peer support's effect on glycemic control. This study aimed to review the effectiveness of DSME interventions integrated with peer support on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Systematically searching was carried out on electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Springer link, Science direct, Scopus, and Google scholar for English language articles published from 2005 until 2020. The effect size was estimated as standard mean difference (SMD). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool were employed to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this study. DSME integrated with peer support effectively reduced HbA1c, and it was statistically significant (SMD= -0.41 95%CI= -0.69 to -0.13; p<0.001). Program with sample size <100 (SMD= -0.45; 95%CI= -0.79 to -0.11; p= 0.009), dura¬tion of intervention ≤6 month (SMD= -0.52; 95%CI= -0.96 to -0.07; p=0.020), baseline at HbA1c <8.5% (SMD= -0.42; 95%CI= -0.77 to -0.07; p=0.020), delivery by group (SMD= -0.28; 95%CI=-0.51 to -0.06; p=0.010), and high frequency of contact (SMD= -0.29; 95%CI= -0.48 to -0.10; p=0.003) were effective and statistically significant to reduce HbA1c level in patients with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSION: DSME integrated with peer support effectively enhances glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Program with smaller study sizes, shorter duration of intervention, weekly meetings and closer group sessions are improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To understand the psychosocial experience of children and identify their primary support needs following a type 1 diabetes diagnosis. METHODS: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature in this area was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included in the review. At diagnosis, the majority of children experienced high distress, including grief, anxiety, anger, irritation and injection anxiety. The intensity of this reaction decreased rapidly over the following weeks. At diagnosis, rates of depressive symptoms, anxiety, stress disorders and suicidal ideation were elevated. The initial reaction tended to peak shortly after diagnosis and declined over the following year. Thereafter, symptoms of depression and anxiety appeared to increase once again, corresponding with the children's experience of diabetes management and implications as being more difficult and upsetting. Injection anxiety, distress and depressive symptoms persisted for a smaller group of children. CONCLUSION: The initial high prevalence of depressive symptoms following diagnosis is transitional and should be regarded as a normal adaptive response. To facilitate this adaptive process, specific child-centred support should be prioritized as an integrated part of early diabetes care. Our findings point to five inter-related support needs following a type 1 diabetes diagnosis: (1) children need time to adjust to the diagnosis; (2) children need supportive relationships; (3) children need an opportunity for meaningful participation and appropriate protection; (4) children need to engage and explore; and (5) children need to feel supported, but not different.

BACKGROUND: A clinical decision support system (CDSS) is a computerized system using case-based reasoning to assist clinicians in assessing disease status, in selecting appropriate therapy or in making other clinical decisions. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs or trials) have shown that CDSSs have the potential to improve the insulin use, but the evidence was conflicting and uncertain. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a CDSS improves the use of insulin. METHOD: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception to October 2018. The quality assessment was based on the risk of bias criteria of the Cochrane Handbook. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs, involving 7653 participants, were included. Thirteen of those trials (54.2%) used a computerized algorithm or a computer-assisted insulin protocol for insulin dose and therapy adjustment, of which 30.8% (four of 13) found significant changes. Of 10 trials that measured mean blood glucose levels and the 11 trials reported HbA1c, the computerized insulin dose adjustment resulted in lower mean blood glucose levels in 70.0% (seven of 10) and 36.4% (four of 11) of RCTs, respectively. Additionally, a significant reduction of hyperglycaemia events was reported in three of six RCTs. The evidence in a majority of the 24 RCTs was of moderate quality. CONCLUSIONS: CDSSs have the potential to improve the insulin use and blood glucose control in a clinical setting. The methodologies in these studies were of mixed quality. Better designed and longer-term studies are required to ensure a larger and more reliable evidence base on the effects of CDSS intervention on insulin use.

AIM: The integrated evidence on diabetes self-care behaviors in people with a disability is not commensurate with the growing number of people with both diabetes and a disability. This study aims to identify factors influencing self-care behaviors in adults with diabetes and a disability based on a thorough review of the current evidence. METHODS: This review followed the Cochrane guidelines for systematic review research and complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. To find eligible articles, five electronic databases-PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Psych-articles, and the Cochrane Library-were searched, from the beginning of the chronological period covered by each database to June 2017. Four researchers independently conducted study selections, extracted data, and assessed the data quality. RESULTS: Twenty studies were reviewed to identify barriers to and facilitators of diabetes self-care behaviors. For people with developmental disabilities, the most prominent facilitator of self-care behaviors was the support they received for the behaviors. For people with visual impairments, that facilitator was the use of helpful assistive devices that take advantage of another sense. The main barriers to self-care behaviors were mobility limitation for people with physical disabilities and lack of accessibility for people with visual impairments. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified barriers to and facilitators of diabetes self-care behaviors by type of disability. Healthcare services need to be tailored to these facilitators and barriers, and differentiated by type of disability.

AIMS: To determine diabetes patient's adherence to five self-care behaviours (diet, exercise; medication, self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] and foot care) in low- and middle-income countries DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PUBMED, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane library and EMCARE for the period January 1990 to June 2017. REVIEW METHODS: Title, abstract and full text screening were done according to an eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis of the literature was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 7,109 studies were identified of which 27 met the review eligibility criteria and were included. All the studies used self-report of adherence to diabetes self-care. Studies reported adherence rates in two major forms: 1) mean number of days participants performed a recommended dietary behaviour/activity during the past week ; and 2) proportions of participants adhering to a recommended self-care behaviour. Mean number of days per week participants adhered to a self-care behaviour ranged from 2.34.6 days per week for diet, 5.5-6.8 days per week for medication, 1.8-5.7 days per week for exercise, 0.2-2.2 days per week for SMBG and 2.2-4.3 days per week for foot care. Adherence rates ranged from 29.9-91.7% for diet, 26.0-97.0% for medication taking, 26.7-69.0% for exercise, 13.0-79.9% for self-monitoring of blood glucose and 17.0-77.4% for foot care. CONCLUSION: Although most diabetes patients do not adhere to recommended self-care behaviours, adherence rates vary widely and were found to be high in some instances. IMPACT: Health services in low- and middle-income countries should monitor adherence to diabetes self-care behaviours rather than assume adherence and resources should be invested in improving adherence to the self-care behaviours. Large-scale accurate monitoring of adherence to diabetes self-care behaviour is needed and consideration should be given to choice of measurement tool for such exercise.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:To assess the effectiveness of health education programmes to improve foot self-care practices and foot problems among older people with diabetes.BACKGROUND:The complications of diabetes among older people are a major health concern. Foot problems such as neuropathy, ulcer and ultimately amputation are a great burden on older people with diabetes. Diabetes foot education programmes can influence the behaviour of older people in practising foot self-care and controlling the foot problems. However, the educational approaches used by the educators are different. Therefore, it is important to assess the education programmes from various evidence-based practices.DESIGN: Six databases, EBSCOhost medical collections (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection), SAGE, Wiley Online Library, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink and Web of Science, were used to search for articles published from January 2000 to March 2015. The search was based on the inclusion criteria and keywords including 'foot', 'care' and 'diabetes'. Fourteen studies were assessed and reviewed in the final stage.CONCLUSIONS:Health education programmes varied according to their design, setting, approach, outcome measured and results. Foot assessment, verbal and written instructions and discussion were proved to improve the foot self-care and foot problems. Subsequent follow-ups and evaluations had a significant effect. An improvement was observed in foot self-care scores and foot problems (such as neuropathy, foot disability, lesion, ulcer, tinea pedis and callus grade) after implementation of the health education programme.IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The findings of this study support the claim that a health education programme increases the foot self-care scores and reduces the foot problems. However, there were certain methodological concerns in the reviewed articles, indicating the need for further evaluation. In future, researchers and practitioners must implement a vigorous education programme focusing on diabetes foot self-care among the older population.

Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is one of the most common microvascular complications presenting by patients diagnosticated with diabetic diseases. Uncontrolled hyperglycemia may manifest as visual impairment and blindness. The early detection of DR is essential to minimize the risk and consequence of visual diminishing. The standard gold diagnoses tool relies on different imaging modalities and requires a judgment of expert photographers, which are not available in most of the primary care centers or remote location. In that scenario, an automate or semiautomated DR screening systems can contribute to improving the accuracy of the diagnostic. Thus, we performed a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to evaluate the Decision Support Systems (DSS) in diagnosing DR. The overall Diagnostic Odds Ratio was 73.15 (95%CI: 37.54-142.50), sensitivity was 97.70 (95%CI: 97.50-97.90) and specificity was 90.30 (95%CI: 90.00-90.60). Our results corroborate with the concept of usefulness of DSSs in early diagnosis, screening and preliminary evaluation of suspicious images of DR.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a chronic and complex disease that requires a multidisciplinary collaborative care approach. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with uncontrolled diabetes within a multidisciplinary collaborative care model. The secondary objective was to evaluate the humanistic and economic outcomes of this model of care. METHODS: A search using PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from 2007 to 2017 was conducted. Articles selected included randomized controlled studies on multidisciplinary collaborative care (defined as care provision by >/= two different care providers) versus usual care (defined as standard care provided solely by physicians) for patients with uncontrolled diabetes. In addition, the eligible article had to report at least two of the three outcomes such as clinical (glycated hemoglobin[HbA1c], systolic blood pressure[SBP], low-density lipoprotein[LDL], and triglyceride[TG]), humanistic (patient-reported measures), and economic (healthcare costs and utilizations) outcomes. Parameters examined included study characteristics, care interventions, patient characteristics, and study outcomes. Primary outcomes using mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed either by fixed or random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included in the review. Multidisciplinary collaborative care significantly improved HbA1c (MD=-0.55%,95% CI=-0.65 to 0.45%, p<0.001, I(2) =35%) and SBP (MD=-4.89mmHg, 95% CI=-6.64 to -3.13mmHg, p<0.001, I(2) =46%) over three to twelve months. The humanistic outcomes in the multidisciplinary collaborative care model were either improved or maintained over time. In comparison to usual care, the healthcare costs and utilizations in the multidisciplinary collaborative care model were comparable without incurring excessive costs. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary collaborative care appeared to positively impact on the clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes of patients with uncontrolled diabetes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

OBJECTIVES: Self-management support aims to give people with chronic disease confidence to actively manage their disease, in partnership with their healthcare provider. A meta-review can inform policy-makers and healthcare managers about the effectiveness of self-management support strategies for people with type 2 diabetes, and which interventions work best and for whom. DESIGN: A meta-review of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed adapting Cochrane methodology. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eight databases were searched for systematic reviews of RCTs from January 1993 to October 2016, with a pre-publication update in April 2017. Forward citation was performed on included reviews in Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Proceedings. We extracted data and assessed quality with the Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Glycaemic control as measured by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was the primary outcome. Body mass Index, lipid profiles, blood pressure and quality of life scoring were secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses reporting HbA1c were summarised in meta-forest plots; other outcomes were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: 41 systematic reviews incorporating data from 459 unique RCTs in diverse socio-economic and ethnic communities across 33 countries were included. R-AMSTAR quality score ranged from 20 to 42 (maximum 44). Apart from one outlier, the majority of reviews found an HbA1c improvement between 0.2% and 0.6% (2.2-6.5 mmol/mol) at 6 months post-intervention, but attenuated at 12 and 24 months. Impact on secondary outcomes was inconsistent and generally non-significant. Diverse self-management support strategies were employed; no single approach appeared optimally effective (or ineffective). Effective programmes tended to be multi-component and provide adequate contact time (>10 hours). Technology-facilitated self-management support showed a similar impact as traditional approaches (HbA1c MD -0.21% to -0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-management interventions using a range of approaches improve short-term glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes including culturally diverse populations. These findings can inform researchers, policy-makers and healthcare professionals re-evaluating the provision of self-management support in routine care. Further research should consider implementation and sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Health information technology tools (eg, patient portals) have the potential to promote engagement, improve patient-provider communication, and enhance clinical outcomes in the management of chronic disorders such as diabetes mellitus (DM). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report the findings of a literature review of studies reporting patient portal use by individuals with type 1 or type 2 DM. We examined the association of the patient portal use with DM-related outcomes and identified opportunities for further improvement in DM management. METHODS: Electronic literature search was conducted through PubMed and PsycINFO databases. The keywords used were "patient portal*," "web portal," "personal health record," and "diabetes." Inclusion criteria included (1) published in the past 10 years, (2) used English language, (3) restricted to age >/=18 years, and (4) available in full text. RESULTS: This review included 6 randomized controlled trials, 16 observational, 4 qualitative, and 4 mixed-methods studies. The results of these studies revealed that 29% to 46% of patients with DM have registered for a portal account, with 27% to 76% of these patients actually using the portal at least once during the study period. Portal use was associated with the following factors: personal traits (eg, sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, health literacy), technology (eg, functionality, usability), and provider engagement. Inconsistent findings were observed regarding the association of patient portal use with DM-related clinical and psychological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to use of the patient portal were identified among patients and providers. Future investigations into strategies that engage both physicians and patients in use of a patient portal to improve patient outcomes are needed.