Evaluating a Structured Self-Management Kit for Type 2 Diabetes: A Mixed Methods Service Evaluation in Primary Care

Type 2 diabetes places increasing pressure on health services, and engagement with structured education and routine preventative care remains variable. Practical self-management tools may help people translate advice into daily routines. This service evaluation examined the implementation, acceptability and early outcomes of the MyHealthKits Diabetic Wellness Kit in routine primary care.

A prospective convergent mixed methods service evaluation was conducted across 13 general practices within three Primary Care Networks in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. Adults with type 2 diabetes received a Diabetic Wellness Kit containing foot care tools, educational materials and access to online resources. Health-related quality of life and healthcare use were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks using EQ-5D-5L and MODRUM questionnaires. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, with paired EQ-5D utility change assessed using a paired t-test. Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample explored usability and perceived impact and were analysed thematically.

A total of 782 kits were distributed. Of these, 131 participants completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires; three were excluded because they reported not receiving the kit, leaving 128 in the primary analysis cohort. Mean EQ- 5D utility scores increased from 0.61 to 0.70, with 65% of complete responders reporting improvement. Self-reported healthcare use was lower across all service categories, with an estimated mean cost difference of £288 per participant. Sensitivity analyses excluding inpatient episodes, and excluding both inpatient episodes and day case appointments, gave estimated mean cost differences of £186 and £183 respectively. Qualitative findings indicated improved self-efficacy, daily care routines, confidence and independence.

The kit was feasible, acceptable and associated with early improvements in reported wellbeing and self-management. Findings should be interpreted cautiously because the evaluation had no control group, high attrition, short follow-up, and self-reported healthcare use. Further controlled studies with longer follow-up and verified healthcare use data are needed.