Executive SummaryView/Download full monograph in Adobe Acrobat format (805 kbytes)
E Loveman,* C Cave, C Green, P Royle, N Dunn and N Waugh
Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, UK
This systematic review examines the clinical and cost-effectiveness of patient education models for adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) is characterised by a state of chronic hyperglycaemia (raised blood sugar). There are two main types of diabetes: Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition involving a process of destruction of the beta cells of the pancreas, leading to severe insulin deficiency. About one-fifth of patients with diabetes in England and Wales have Type 1 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is characterised by insulin resistance and relative insulin deficiency and is linked to being overweight or obese, and to physical inactivity. Type 2 diabetes primarily affects people aged over 40 years. The basic target in the treatment of diabetes is the normalisation of blood glucose levels. Poor control of diabetes can in the short term result in diabetic ketoacidosis, a serious and potentially fatal condition, and in the long term can increase the risk of complications such as diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy. However, studies have shown that good diabetic control is associated with a reduced risk of these complications. Diabetic control is affected by both lifestyle factors such as diet, and by pharmacological treatments, and the management of diabetes is largely the responsibility of patients. A key component in empowering patients to manage their own diabetes is education.
Education of patients with diabetes is considered a fundamental aspect of diabetes care and aims to empower patients by improving knowledge and skills. Structured educational programmes for diabetes self-management are often multifaceted interventions providing patients with information not only about diabetes but also management issues such as diet, exercise, self-monitoring of blood glucose and medication use.
A systematic review of the literature and an economic evaluation were undertaken.
Electronic databases were searched, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Science Citation Index, Web of Science Proceedings, DARE and HTA databases, PsychINFO, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and EconLit. References of all retrieved articles were checked for relevant studies, and experts were contacted for advice and peer review and to identify additional published and unpublished references. Sponsor submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence were reviewed.
Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria:
Studies in non-English language or available only as abstracts were excluded.
Titles and abstracts were checked by two reviewers. Full texts of selected studies were assessed for inclusion by one reviewer and checked by a second. Differences in opinion were resolved through discussion.
Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second, with any disagreement resolved through discussion involving a third reviewer if necessary. The quality of included studies was assessed in accordance with Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Report 4.
Data on clinical effectiveness were synthesised through a narrative review with tabulation of results from included studies. Studies were too diverse to be combined in a meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness analyses were reported in a narrative review.
Searches identified 24 studies comparing education with either a control group or with another educational intervention. These were 18 RCTs and six CCTs. Four studies included adults with Type 1 diabetes, 16 studies included adults with Type 2 diabetes and four studies included adults with either Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. The quality of reporting and methodology of the studies was generally poor by todays standards with only two RCTs reporting adequate randomisation procedures and none demonstrating adequate allocation concealment.
Literature searches identified only two studies reporting cost-effectiveness results: one cost-utility analysis and one cost-effectiveness analysis using intermediate outcomes only.
Studies of education in Type 1 diabetes suggest that education programmes offered as a part of intensified treatment interventions can result in significant and long-lasting improvements in metabolic control and reductions in complications. These are studies in which education is part of a package of care also including treatment changes (for example diet and insulin) and therefore it is not possible to draw conclusions about potential effects of education per se in Type 1 diabetes.
Diverse educational programmes in Type 2 diabetes did not yield consistent results. Although some trials reported significant improvements in metabolic control and/or quality of life or other psychological outcomes, many others did not report significant effects of educational interventions. No clear characterisation is possible as to what features of education may be beneficial in this patient group.
Studies that included patients with either Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes also produced mixed results with only poorer quality studies reporting significant effects.
Literature searches identified a small number of studies offering cost data in relation to patient education models. These were all studies undertaken outside the UK and they covered a variety of methodologies. We are not able to generalise from these studies as to the cost-effectiveness of patient education models. Patient education models will predominantly consist of direct costs for resource inputs to particular education packages, for example staff time (diabetes specialist nurse, dietitian and/or consultant) and education materials. The Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE) intervention is estimated to cost approximately £545 per person attending.
Owing to the absence of accurate data on health outcomes, we are not able to provide cost-effectiveness summary statistics. The evidence base does indicate that improved glycaemic control is likely to have a positive impact on the incidence of long-term diabetic complications. Therefore, where the costs associated with patient education are assumed to be in the region of £500600 per patient, the benefits over time would have to be very modest to offer an attractive cost-effectiveness profile for the intervention. The submission from the DAFNE study group predicts a scenario in which the DAFNE intervention results in cost savings and added health benefits over time, when compared with usual practice.
The main implication for the NHS would be staff time, particularly of diabetes specialist nurses, but also dietitians. Provision of increased education may be hindered by a shortage of trained specialist nurses, which will take some years to resolve.
The paucity of high-quality trials that have tested education per se in diabetes reveals a need for more research. Such research should focus on RCTs with clear designs based on explicit hypotheses and with a range of outcomes evaluated after long follow-up intervals. In order to draw conclusions about the effects of education alone, such trials should manipulate only education rather than confounding education with other factors.
Loveman E, Cave C, Green C, Royle P, Dunn N, Waugh N. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of patient education models for diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(22). Top ^
The NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme was set up in 1993 to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
The research reported in this monograph was commissioned by the HTA Programme on behalf of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Technology assessment reports are completed in a limited time to inform the appraisal and guidance development processes managed by NICE. The review brings together evidence on key aspects of the use of the technology concerned.However, appraisals and guidance produced by NICE are informed by a wide range of sources.
The research reported in this monograph was funded as project number 01/55/01.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA Programme, NICE or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for any recommendations made by the authors.
Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph series
Reports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work commissioned for the HTA Programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.
Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed systematic when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.
HTA Programme Director: Professor Kent Woods
Series Editors: Professor Andrew Stevens, Dr Ken Stein, Professor John Gabbay, Dr Ruairidh Milne, Dr Chris Hyde and Dr Rob Riemsma
Managing Editors: Sally Bailey and Sarah Llewellyn Lloyd
The editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of this report but do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
© 2003 Crown Copyright Top ^