Interventions for self-management of type 2 diabetes: An integrative review

Type 2 diabetes mellitus has been identified as one of the most challenging chronic illnesses to manage. Since the management of diabetes is mainly accomplished by patients and families, self-management has become the mainstay of diabetes care. However, a significant proportion of patients fail to engage in adequate self-management. A priority research question is how do interventions affect the self-management behaviors of persons with Type 2 diabetes?

The purpose of this integrative review is to provide a summary and critique of interventions that support diabetes self-management in the patient with Type II diabetes mellitus.

An integrative review design, with a comprehensive methodological approach of reviews, allowing inclusion of experimental and non-experimental studies.

A comprehensive search was conducted via Ebscohost using databases of Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, MEDLINE, PsycArtiCLES, and PsycInfo. The final number of papers used for this review were: motivational interviewing (6), peer support/coaching (10), problem solving therapy (3), technology-based interventions (30), lifestyle modification programs (7), patient education (11), mindfulness (3), and cognitive behavioral therapy (5).

Studies were examined from seventeen countries including a broad range of cultures and ethnicities. While interventions have shown mixed results in all interventional categories, many studies do support small to modest improvements in physiologic, behavioral, and psychological outcome measures. Considerable heterogeneity of interventions exists. The most commonly reported physiologic measure was HbA1c level. Outcome measures were collected mostly at 6 and 12 months. Duration of most research was limited to one year.

Research exploring the impact of interventions for self-management has made major contributions to the care of persons with type 2 diabetes, from offering suggestions for improving care, to stimulating new questions for research. However, implications for clinical practice remain inconclusive, and limitations in existing research suggest caution in interpreting results of studies.