Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Effect of a group-based rehabilitation programme on glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes patients: the Copenhagen type 2 diabetes rehabilitation project [with consumer summary] |
Vadstrup ES, Frolich A, Perrild H, Borg E, Roder M |
Patient Education and Counseling 2011 Aug;84(2):185-190 |
clinical trial |
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a group-based rehabilitation programme with an individual counselling programme at improving glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We randomised 143 adult type 2 diabetes patients to either a 6-month multidisciplinary group-based rehabilitation programme or a 6-month individual counselling programme. Outcome measures included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, lipid profile, weight, and waist circumference. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c decreased 0.3%-point (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.5 to -0.1) in the rehabilitation group and 0.6%-point (95% CI -0.8 to -0.4) among individual counselling participants (p < 0.05). Within both groups, equal reductions occurred in body weight, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, but no significant between-group differences between occurred for any of the cardiovascular outcomes. The group-based rehabilitation programme consumed twice as many personnel resources. CONCLUSION: The group-based rehabilitation programme resulted in changes in glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor reduction that were equivalent or inferior to those of an individual counselling programme. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The group-based rehabilitation programme, tested in the current design, did not offer additionally improved outcomes and consumed more personnel resources than the individual counselling programme; its broad implementation is not supported by this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00284609.
|