The design of an evaluation framework for diabetes self-management education and support programs delivered nationally

被引:9
作者
Olson, Jenny Louise [1 ,2 ,3 ]
White, Becky [1 ]
Mitchell, Helen [1 ]
Halliday, Jennifer [4 ,5 ]
Skinner, Timothy [5 ,6 ,7 ]
Schofield, Deborah [1 ]
Sweeting, Jennifer [1 ]
Watson, Natasha [1 ]
机构
[1] Diabet WA, Level 3,322 Hay St, Subiaco, WA, Australia
[2] Penn State Univ, Dept Kinesiol, 276 Recreat Hall, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[3] Penn State Univ, Coll Med, Hershey, PA 17033 USA
[4] Deakin Univ, Sch Psychol, Geelong, Vic, Australia
[5] Diabet Victoria, Australian Ctr Behav Res Diabet, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] La Trobe Univ, La Trobe Rural Hlth Sch, Bendigo, Vic, Australia
[7] Univ Copenhagen, Inst Psychol, Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
Implementation science; Program evaluation; Diabetes self-management education and support; Health services research; Self-management; Chronic disease; Diabetes mellitus; Self-determination; Psychosocial adjustment; STRUCTURED EDUCATION; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; INTERVENTIONS; EMPOWERMENT; DISTRESS; OUTCOMES; PEOPLE; ADULTS; TIME; CARE;
D O I
10.1186/s12913-021-07374-4
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The aim of this work was to develop a National Evaluation Framework to facilitate the standardization of delivery, quality, reporting, and evaluation of diabetes education and support programs delivered throughout Australia through the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS). The NDSS is funded by the Australian Government, and provides access to diabetes information, education, support, and subsidized product across diverse settings in each state and territory of Australia through seven independent service-providers. This article reports the approach undertaken to develop the Framework. Methods A participatory approach was undertaken, focused on adopting nationally consistent outcomes and indicators, nominating objectives and measurement tools, specifying evaluation processes, and developing quality standards. Existing programs were classified based on related, overarching indicators enabling the adoption of a tiered system of evaluation. Results Two outcomes (i.e., improved clinical, reduced cost) and four indicators (i.e., improved knowledge and understanding, self-management, self-determination, psychosocial adjustment) were adopted from the Eigenmann and Colagiuri national consensus position statement for diabetes education. This allowed for the identification of objectives (i.e., improved empowerment, reduced distress, autonomy supportive program delivery, consumer satisfaction) and related measurement instruments. Programs were categorized as comprehensive, topic-specific, or basic education, with comprehensive programs allocated to receive the highest-level of evaluation. Eight quality standards were developed, with existing programs tested against those standards. Based on the results of testing, two comprehensive (OzDAFNE for people with type 1 diabetes, DESMOND for people with type 2 diabetes), and eight topic-specific (CarbSmart, ShopSmart, MonitorSmart, FootSmart, MedSmart, Living with Insulin, Insulin Pump Workshop, Ready Set Go - Let's Move) structured diabetes self-management education and support programs were nominated for national delivery. Conclusions The National Evaluation Framework has facilitated consistency of program quality, delivery, and evaluation of programs delivered by multiple service providers across diverse contexts. The Framework could be applied by other service providers who facilitate multiple diabetes education and support programs and could be adapted for use in other chronic disease populations where education and support are indicated.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] The Diabetes Empowerment Scale - A measure of psychosocial self-efficacy
    Anderson, RM
    Funnell, MM
    Fitzgerald, JT
    Marrero, DG
    [J]. DIABETES CARE, 2000, 23 (06) : 739 - 743
  • [2] Global Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes
    不详
    [J]. DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2014, 104 (01) : 1 - 52
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2011, GLOB IDF ISPAD GUID
  • [4] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2021, NAT SAF QUAL HLTH SE
  • [5] Burke SD, 2014, DIABET METAB SYND OB, V7, P45, DOI 10.2147/DMSO.S40036
  • [6] Diabetes structured self-management education programmes: a narrative review and current innovations
    Chatterjee, Sudesna
    Davies, Melanie J.
    Heller, Simon
    Speight, Jane
    Snoek, Frank J.
    Khunti, Kamlesh
    [J]. LANCET DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2018, 6 (02) : 130 - 142
  • [7] IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045
    Cho, N. H.
    Shaw, J. E.
    Karuranga, S.
    Huang, Y.
    Fernandes, J. D. da Rocha
    Ohlrogge, A. W.
    Malanda, B.
    [J]. DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2018, 138 : 271 - 281
  • [8] Diabetes self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review of the effect on glycemic control
    Chrvala, Carole A.
    Sherr, Dawn
    Lipman, Ruth D.
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2016, 99 (06) : 926 - 943
  • [9] CustomerGauge, 2020, WHAT IS NET PROM SCO
  • [10] Effectiveness of the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial
    Davies, M. J.
    Heller, S.
    Skinner, T. C.
    Campbell, M. J.
    Carey, M. E.
    Cradock, S.
    Dallosso, H. M.
    Daly, H.
    Doherty, Y.
    Eaton, S.
    Fox, C.
    Oliver, L.
    Rantell, K.
    Rayman, G.
    Khunti, K.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 336 (7642): : 491 - 495