The effectiveness of self-care interventions in chronic illness: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To characterize and explain variation in the comparative effectiveness of self-care interventions on relevant outcomes of chronic illness compared with controls.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Data extraction was framed within the context of a previously-published scoping review of randomized trials designed to enhance self-care in type 2 diabetes mellitus, heart failure, hypertension, asthma, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (published between 2008 and 2019). Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-regression was used to test the effect of potential moderators on trial effectiveness.

145 trials involving 36,853 participants were included. Overall, the effect size of self-care interventions on improving outcomes was small (Hedges' g = 0.29 (95% CI = 0.25-0.33), p < 0.001) with statistically significant heterogeneity across trials (Q = 514.85, p < 0.001, I² = 72.0%). A majority of trials (n = 83, 57.2%) were rated as having a high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in trial effectiveness based on the use of theory, specific components of self-care addressed, the number of modes of delivery, the number of behavioral change techniques, specific modes of delivery, specific behavioral change techniques, intervention duration, total number of hours of intervention, or either participant age or gender.

Self-care interventions are modestly effective in improving outcomes. Poor trial quality limits the strength of conclusions in this area of science. There is much to be done to enhance the design, conduct and reporting of self-care trials in order to gain more insight into the effectiveness of self-care interventions.

New review highlights poor trial design as major impediment to understanding the contribution of self -care to outcomes in chronic illness.