Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Psychosocial interventions for reducing diabetes distress in vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. Clinical potential of lixisenatide once daily treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Incretin mimetics: a novel therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes - a review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  1. Extent and application of patient diaries in Austria: process of continuing adaptation

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Impact of caller's degree-of-worry on triage response in out-of-hours telephone consultations: a randomized controlled trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

Diabetes distress (DD) disproportionately affects vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and interventions targeting this population are therefore relevant. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the evidence for an effect of psychosocial interventions for reducing DD, and, secondly HbA1c, depression, and health-related quality of life in vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Vulnerability encompasses poor glycemic control (HbA1c >7.5%) and at least one additional risk factor for poor diabetes outcomes such as low educational level, comorbidity, and risky lifestyle behavior. The interventions should be theoretically founded and include cognition- or emotion-focused elements. We systematically searched four databases for articles published between January 1995 and March 2018. Eighteen studies testing a variety of psychosocial interventions in 4,066 patients were included. We adhered to the Cochrane methodology and PRISMA guidelines. Review Manager 5.3 was used for data extraction and risk of bias assessment, and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation for assessing the quality of the evidence. Data were pooled using the fixed or random effects method as appropriate. We investigated effects of individual vs group, intensive vs brief interventions, and interventions with and without motivational interviewing in subgroup analyses. To assess the robustness of effect estimates, sensitivity analyses excluding studies with high risk of bias and attrition >20% were conducted. We found low to moderate quality evidence for a significant small effect of psychosocial interventions on DD, and very low to moderate quality evidence for no effect on HbA1c, both outcomes assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up. The effect on depression was small, while there was no effect on health-related quality of life. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that interventions using motivational interviewing and individual interventions were associated with incremental effects on DD. Likewise, intensive interventions were associated with significant reductions in both DD and HbA1c.

Original languageEnglish
JournalDiabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
Volume12
Pages (from-to)19-33
ISSN1178-7007
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

ID: 56225160