Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Current evidence for designing self-management support for underserved populations: an integrative review using the example of diabetes

International Journal for Equity in Health volume 22, Article number: 188 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Aims

With numerous and continuing attempts at adapting diabetes self-management support programmes to better account for underserved populations, its important that the lessons being learned are understood and shared. The work we present here reviews the latest evidence and best practice in designing and embedding culturally and socially sensitive, self-management support programmes.

Methods

We explored the literature with regard to four key design considerations of diabetes self-management support programmes: Composition - the design and content of written materials and digital tools and interfaces; Structure - the combination of individual and group sessions, their frequency, and the overall duration of programmes; Facilitators - the combination of individuals used to deliver the programme; and Context – the influence and mitigation of a range of individual, socio-cultural, and environmental factors.

Results

We found useful and recent examples of design innovation within a variety of countries and models of health care delivery including Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Within Composition we confirmed the importance of retaining best practice in creating readily understood written information and intuitive digital interfaces; Structure the need to offer group, individual, and remote learning options in programmes of flexible duration and frequency; Facilitators where the benefits of using culturally concordant peers and community-based providers were described; and finally in Context the need to integrate self-management support programmes within existing health systems, and tailor their various constituent elements according to the language, resources, and beliefs of individuals and their communities.

Conclusions

A number of design principles across the four design considerations were identified that together offer a promising means of creating the next generation of self-management support programme more readily accessible for underserved communities. Ultimately, we recommend that the precise configuration should be co-produced by all relevant service and patient stakeholders and its delivery embedded in local health systems.

Introduction

In England the life expectancy of those with diabetes is improving amongst all age groups, including the circa 40,000 children and young people with diabetes (CYPD) [1]. However, the prognosis remains considerably worse for individuals from communities that are underserved by health services i.e., those who are economically deprived and/or from ethnic minorities that are engaged less effectively by formal healthcare interventions [2, 3], where they tend to have chronically higher glucose levels, and an increased risk of complications and death [4,5,6,7,8]. One way that the disparities in outcomes might be addressed, is by more effective utilisation of diabetes self-management support programmes (dSSP). Such multi-dimensional programmes which can equip patients with the confidence and ability to better manage both their symptoms and the psychological impact of their condition have demonstrated the potential to improve a range of clinical and behavioural outcomes across multiple chronic conditions including diabetes [9,10,11,12].

In the United Kingdom (UK) there are a number of formal, nationally available dSSP [13,14,15,16,17] aimed at improving self-management across the whole population [18,19,20]. However, a number of contributory factors have been identified that influence consistent access, engagement, and ultimately adherence to these programmes, relating to the individual patient, the complexity of their condition, and the local health economy (see Fig. 1). For individuals with diabetes from underserved groups these barriers are exacerbated by the impact of a range of socio-economic, cultural and logistical issues that need to be addressed if the potential benefits of dSSP are to be realised and existing disparities mitigated [21,22,23,24,25,26]. Not all of these barriers can be overcome by a single dSSP, although it is now understood that more can be done in the design and delivery of self-management support to account for these challenges. Recent attempts have been made to adapt dSSP to better account for the cultural, environmental and social factors relevant to local populations [16, 27,28,29]. This has included using the inputs from target populations to develop programmes that better reflect the values, beliefs, and practices of local communities [30,31,32,33].

In attempting to design dSSP that better serve CYPD from underserved communities, the Diversity in Diabetes study is using the principles of engagement and co-design to create a bespoke programme of support, more sensitive to the needs and preferences of CYPD in the target populations (i.e. those from the two most deprived quintiles defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation or from ethnically minoritized groups) and their families [34, 35]. To inform the co-production process, it is important to establish the latest evidence in designing culturally and socially sensitive dSSP. This narrative review provides a concise yet comprehensive summary of current knowledge and best practice in the composition, structure, and delivery of dSSP, and of the contextual factors that need to be accommodated in their design and implementation. It concludes by reflecting on the implications for creating and sustaining dSSP that are practical and appropriate for underserved communities in the UK.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Contextual factors affecting access and engagement with (diabetes) self-management programmes (after [36,37,38,39])

Full size image

Methods

Study design

The work consists of an integrative review of research conducted in populations with diabetes to determine the knowledge and ideas established in the design and implementation of dSSP for individuals from underserved communities [40, 41]. Our intention was not to identify every piece of work that has been conducted around dSSP for underserved populations, but to follow best practice in conducting integrative evidence reviews, summarizing the empirical and theoretical literature illustrated by recent and relevant examples to map the design principles currently being utilised within four key domains: These were informed by the existing self-management literature [9,10,11,12] and were selected and defined by the authors to enable an original and holistic description of the factors contributing to the design of a dSSP, which consisted of: (1) Composition of the written and digital materials including sentence structure and format and the use of images and graphics; (2) Structure, describing various elements in how the programme is delivered for example the number of individual or groups sessions, the location and duration of the SSP; (3) Facilitators referring to the identity and role of those delivering the SSP; and (4) Context which describes how the design of SSP accommodates social, cultural and health system influences. These are further described in Table 1.

Table 1 Design considerations for self-management support programmes for underserved populations
Full size table

Where available, we report their impact on key diabetes related outcomes and consider the overall implications for the design of the next generation of SSP. Study eligibility criteria were established using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design (PICO) framework [41] (see Table 2) and we have described our search in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [42].

Table 2 Summary of study eligibility
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

PRISMA diagram

Full size image

Search methods

The literature was searched in December 2022 from 2017 onwards for recent examples on the adaptations to dSSP related to the four considerations of design for underserved populations. This timespan allows us to describe recent research relevant to current models of healthcare delivery. We created a search for one database and adapted it for use in the others. used the following electronic medical databases: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL and EPPI. The inclusion criteria for our review comprised both primary research and a range of systematic reviews, that were peer-reviewed and published in English. The search terms can be found in Supplementary File 1.

Data extraction and synthesis

The data was extracted within the four key design considerations by two authors (IL and SG). First, titles and abstracts were screened independently by IL and SG. The full text were then screened by IL with a second checking. A primarily narrative approach consistent with the recommended analytical method for narrative synthesis was used to summarise the nature and effect of the design elements within the four domains [40]. The criteria for selecting the data we reported were based on their relevance to the design and delivery of future programmes for underserved communities. We extracted data that included (i)programme overview (ii) author and publication date (iii) type of intervention (iv) target population (patient characteristic/condition, i.e., Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) (v) quality score (vi) summary of effect.

Results

A total of 21 papers describing the dSSP in underserved populations were included in the review. We initially retrieved 744 articles and after duplicates, protocols, or excluding because they were not specific to one of the design considerations or underserved populations were left with 21 examples explored in the review. The PRISMA Flow Diagram is shown in Fig. 2.

Below we describe the work conducted in designing dSSP to improve access, engagement, and adherence in underserved populations and discuss these adaptations in the context of their theoretical basis and what we know of dSSP in the general population. An overview of our findings is contained in Table 3, placing the adaptations in dSSP for underserved populations in the context of the potential barriers they are intended to address. There were 13 original papers and 7 reviews and referenced work conducted in Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States of America (USA). Only 1 of the papers identified focussed on children 1. The characteristics of both the key reviews and primary research we included are summarised in Supplementary File 2.

Table 3 Summary of barriers to accessing dSSP and design related solutions
Full size table

Composition

DSSP are reliant on a range of written content often presented alongside graphics, images and icons. These can be presented within printed materials such as booklets or handbooks, or digitally as part of a website, portal, or app.

Written materials

An individual’s ability to understand written content is linked to both the conceptual difficulty of the information and the cognitive demands of the chosen language, and the design, and format of its presentation [94]. Because reducing the cognitive load increases readability and engagement with health materials for all sections of the population, some generic rules can be applied to the syntactic content and structure. These include the use of shorter sentences and words, the avoidance of abbreviations and technical jargon, applying informal or conversational writing styles, and the use of patient stories in lieu of clinical facts and statistics [95,96,97].

Alongside linguistic considerations, elements of the presentation can also be adapted to assist comprehension [98]. For example; logically ordering content to help readers navigate the material [99]; surrounding text with white space, and using clear font and regular sub-headings to group text [44]. The judicious use of images can also increase understanding [100] though abstract graphics and symbols should be avoided in preference for simple line drawings which are closely linked to the relevant text and communicate a single idea [96, 101, 102].

Designing for underserved populations

Although the generic design principles outlined above should be routinely applied to all written materials they are particularly important where intended for underserved populations that characteristically exhibit lower health literacy, linked to their educational attainment, gender, levels of unemployment, and affiliation with religious beliefs [103][29]. There are several tools available to assess and improve the readability of written health materials such as the Flesch formula that uses the length of sentences and words to calculate the required reading level [43] or User-Testing where time to locate information by a sample of the target patient population is assessed [44]. A combination of these principles has been used recently in the creation of diabetes educational materials for CYPD in low income populations in South America [45].

Graphical user interface

The growing use of mHealth in dSSP (i.e., the use of apps, devices and digital connectivity to support healthcare) means that individuals with various information requirements, cognitive capabilities and limitations are increasingly likely to use graphical user interfaces (GUI) [104,105,106].The design principles used to increase comprehension and engagement with software based graphical interfaces are similarly informed by cognitive science [107]. They include the use of contrast between screen elements, grouping items, and using colours and graphics effectively and simply [108]. Previously the GUI of self-management tools for diabetes have improved engagement when they were combined with electronic reminders, tailored to individuals, and with clearer data visualizations and better organised text [109,110,111].

Designing for underserved populations

A number of tools that have been developed to support the process of designing GUI for users with low digital literacy, as found in underserved populations [2], these include design checklists [47], and tools that accurately assess the digital literacy of intended users [48]. In designing GUIs for underserved populations with diabetes, evidence from a recent engagement exercise in the USA described their preferences for interfaces that favour multimedia over text, and provide quick access to pertinent information on regulating blood glucose, diet, and physical activity [49].

Structure

Typically, dSSP consists of a number of linked sessions delivered in various combinations of in-person and remote sessions over a period of weeks or months [16, 17].

Duration/location

The precise arrangement and combination of these taught and independently completed modules varies between programmes, with little consensus on the optimal duration and curriculum for maximising completion [112]. It is recognised that accessing dSSP via in-person sessions at central locations at fixed times, raises logistical barriers to access around transportation, inflexible work hours, and family commitments [113]. The flexibility offered by remote access to dSSP via a range of digital tools, text messaging, and telephone coaching [114,115,116] offers a promising means of improving access for all sections of the population [117, 118].

Designing for underserved populations

There is contradictory evidence around the optimum intensity of dSSP for underserved populations with successful programmes ranging from a minimum of ten in-person sessions delivered over six months to those running for shorter periods with varying frequencies of contact with facilitators [57,58,59,60, 119]. As the challenges of access to in-person elements of dSSP are more pronounced in underserved populations with reduced incomes and a greater reliance on public transport [61, 120], it is recommended they are offered sessions at different times and more readily accessible community facilities [50, 51]. There is growing evidence of the ability of mHealth to reach underserved populations with diabetes, with a number of systematic reviews of international evidence reporting improvements in diabetes control, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) [53], younger patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) [55] and older patients with T2DM [76], and hard to reach populations with T1DM and T2DM [121]. A systematic review of evidence in the USA that focussed on black and Hispanic patients reported similar positive outcomes [54] though a systematic review of web-based dSSP found that benefits were less evident in those groups of lower education or income [122].

Recent primary research exploring the preferences for mHealth and dSSP in underserved patient populations with T1DM, have expressed preferences for programmes that involved peers and family in support of their digital literacy [123], and young adults within the USA described the importance of improving the usability of mHealth technology to accommodate inconsistent internet connectivity [55], again in the USA Hispanic patients with T2DM described the need for lighter more portable technology [56].

Group vs. individual

The taught components of dSSP sessions can consist of group or one-to-one sessions, though the bulk of the evidence has described the benefit of structured group education which can improve a number of health status measures including psychological resilience, diet, physical activity, and symptom management [124, 125] and is more cost effective to deliver [126].

However, participation in group-based dSSP declines with lower economic status, advanced age, or if from an immigrant background [90, 127]. This may in part be due to the social comparisons inevitable in group work, which do not fit well with those not wanting to identify with having the condition [62, 128].

Designing for underserved populations

A recent systematic review of group sessions in dSSP described how they helped underserved populations with T2DM and significantly improved reductions in HbA1c by facilitating discussions and encouraging support from others facing the same socio-cultural challenges [63]. However, group participation can be stigma inducing for some sections of underserved populations and it is important to preserve the option of individual sessions [62]. (The cultural source of this stigmatisation is described in more detail in 4. Context)

Syllabus

DSSP typically incorporate several interacting components that address various requirements of self-management including diabetes education [129], self-monitoring [130], lifestyle changes [131, 132]; and psychological resilience [62]. However, the degree to which patients with diabetes engage with these multiple elements is influenced by a number of factors including education, self-efficacy, and level of (health) literacy and attention must be paid as to how these elements are combined [133].

Designing for underserved populations

As described previously, underserved populations tend to have lower levels of education and literacy skills than other sections of the population which adversely affects their ability to engage with complex programmes[49]. Attempts at exploring their preferences for how dSSP is structured, and the aspects of self-management important to them, have expressed preferences for practical and meaningful content, for example that which helps them maintain their independence or can directly inform healthy lifestyle choices [49, 64]. Studies investigating improving adherence to self-management programmes in a range of chronic conditions in underserved populations including diabetes, found that adherence can be improved by reducing the complexity of the programme, with evidence that the most effective programmes support only three or four self-management skills [65].

Facilitators

DSSP can be delivered and supported by a combination of clinicians, peers and community-based health workers and pharmacists. In all cases, it is important the chosen facilitators are accessible, credible, and empathic with the group they are educating [134].

Healthcare professionals

Clinically trained health care professionals (HCP) are situated within the health service and can be directly involved in delivering taught components of dSSP, as well as contributing indirectly by supporting and complementing the messages and self-management skills being taught on dSSP through their routine contact with patients. The regularity of this contact, particularly in primary care environments means HCPs are well-placed to support patients in their identification and adherence to relevant self-management goals, and link them with local community and social groups [112, 135,136,137].

Designing for underserved populations

The role of HCPs in delivering or supporting self-management support in primary care and community settings remains less effective, in underserved communities in the USA [138]. Recent work trying to address this issue in the UK introduced an intervention designed to increase clinician engagement with dSSP in primary care organisations [139], which made recommendations for clearer marketing strategies that involved more coherent messaging around the benefits of self-management, more effective referral pathways that involved the ability to directly access booking systems, and closer collaborations with clinicians from other settings [66].

Peer support

Peer supporters i.e., those with similar characteristics as the target population and experiential knowledge of a specific illness or condition [140] are drawn from the communities they serve and so usually better understand the languages, cultures and circumstances of those they support [141]. There is growing evidence that peer facilitators can increase engagement and retention to dSSP amongst all sections of the populations, sharing practical experiences and helping people develop the skills and motivation needed to manage their health in the context of their everyday life [142, 143]. Benefits in a number of self-management behaviours have been consistently described [144,145,146].

Designing for underserved populations

There is also evidence of the value of peer support in reaching underserved populations with diabetes, in particular that they can help address some of the broader social determinants of health such as reducing isolation or providing confidence to adopt positive lifestyle behaviours and emotional reassurance [67, 69, 147]. A recent systematic review of peer support in dSSP amongst migrants and ethnic minorities, reported improvements in a range of lifestyle behaviours [68] and a number of recent studies in underserved populations in the USA have reported improvements in a range of clinical measures and diabetes-related behaviours in African-Americans [71], the rural poor [72] in diverse urban populations [70], and in Mexico in Mayan populations [73].

Community based health workers

Community Health Workers (CHWs) drawn from local populations and supported by the health system (but not necessarily a part of its organization) typically undergo shorter training than their professional colleagues [148]. Pharmacists can also be categorised as community-based care providers. The social support, accountability, practical skill building, and accessibility of CHWs has long-been recognised as a valuable adjunct to dSSP across all sections of the population [149] and more recently, local pharmacist-led interventions have also proven effective in improving medication adherence in adult patients with T1DM and T2DM [150].

Designing for underserved populations

Primary research has described how the use of CHWs has led to improved enrolment and engagement with dSSP in underserved communities in the UK [60]. Recent studies in the USA have also described how their involvement has led to increased physical activity and improved dietary behaviours amongst adults with low income [74] and clinically significant improvement in blood glucose control in Latino [58], ethnic minority [75], low-income, ethnic minority [55], and elderly populations [76].

A number of ongoing studies are exploring the impact of combining CHW led dSSP with mHealth in the USA [55, 151, 152], with social prescribing in the UK [153], with health coaches in the USA [154], and in community led initiatives in Norway [155]. Though little work to date, has focussed specifically on using pharmacists in underserved populations there are early indications, from a study in the USA, that where they share a language with the local population (“language concordance”), they can improve glycaemic control in minority populations [77].

Context

Contextual influences, facilitate and constrain dSSP interacting with, and modifying the various elements of the programme [156]. Here we describe its effect within three domains: the individual, their community, including its societal and cultural aspects, and the broader health system.

Individual

Attendance and engagement to dSSP is impacted by the influences of a number of individual patient characteristics including their demographics [91, 157], clinical status [19], psychological factors [158, 159] and family and social support [111]. Many of the adverse impacts of these characteristics on dSSP engagement are exacerbated in underserved populations where they are compounded by a lack of awareness or understanding of the benefits of dSSP, feelings of stigma and shame, and the irrelevance of the advice of standardised programmes to their daily lives [61].

Designing for underserved populations

To support individuals within underserved populations to engage and adhere to dSSP, it is recommended that it is tailored to reflect the self-management support a particular individual prefers and needs [136]. This requires gaining a structured understanding of the outcomes important to that patient with diabetes [160] with a range of tools available and successfully used in diabetes to capture patient activation [79], patient outcomes [78], and health education impact questionnaires [80] as well as talking to patients about their personal narratives and emotional touch points [161]. Recent systematic reviews have described the success of tailored education packages in Latino populations in the USA [81] and the positive impacts on a range of self-management behaviours of ethnically matching facilitators’ ethnicity and language to Americans of African descent [82].

Community

The characteristics of a specific individual overlap and interact with the socio-cultural influences of their community as they engage with dSSP. These include the social conditions relating to the economic, environmental, and political features of their setting [157]. They also include the cultural influences of language, belief systems, and attitudes to health, care, and western medicine [33, 61, 157, 162, 163]: their precise nature varying according to their geographical origin, and religion [164,165,166,167,168,169].

Designing for underserved populations

Similar to the way in which dSSP can be tailored to meet the needs of individuals, they can be adapted to reflect cultural needs and preferences at the population level [83]. These adaptations include using ethnically relevant patient stories and presenting health-related issues in the context of broader social and cultural values [170]. Recent reviews have described how sensitively conducted, cultural tailoring can improve understanding of diabetes education in groups with lower health literacy [84] and overcome conflict between cultural preferences and health professional guidance in south Asians with T2DM in the UK [85].

Health system

For dSSP to be successful for any sections of a given community, it is important that national and local leaders commission programmes that are not only meaningful to local people but also embedded within the broader health system [113]. This often requires systemic change including a recognised need for more effective referral pathways, and building stronger links with the voluntary and community sector [171], and informational continuity between organisations and settings [172].

Designing for underserved populations

The ongoing issues with referral to dSSP are more pronounced amongst underserved populations as noted in the USA [88], the UK [89], and Canada where it has been suggested that clinicians are reluctant to refer those that have previously struggled to maintain appropriate health behaviours [90, 91]. It has been recommended that pathways to dSSP must be developed to better accommodate underserved populations by improving these referral processes and establishing more robust collaborative networks across statutory, voluntary, and community sectors [29, 173, 174].

Discussion

General findings

This overview of how dSSP can be developed to better engage underserved populations, proposes informing their design in four key areas. Firstly, Composition: it is important to reduce the cognitive load of written information and digital interfaces, making use of existing tools and the input of the target population. Secondly, the Structure needs to provide both group and individual options in programmes that are flexible in their duration, intensity, and utilisation of online resources in meeting the logistical pressure of physical access. Thirdly, selecting Facilitators should maximise the widely acknowledged benefits of using peers and community-based care providers (and a growing role for pharmacists) that mirror the characteristics of the populations they are educating. Fourthly, shaping dSSP according to Context, the importance of tailoring interventions sympathetic to the language, resources and beliefs of underserved populations was described alongside the need for a more integrated, whole system approach to dSSP implementation. Below we discuss the practical implications of how these considerations can be effectively implemented in the optimal combination of dSSP required by specific populations and suggest some practical steps to support their being embedded and sustained by the broader health service.

Strengths and limitations

To aid our exploration, we categorised design considerations into four key areas to support those constructing dSSPs. This did mean that literature where these were not accurately described or defined was excluded. We also acknowledge that none of these elements exist in isolation and in reality, a single programme would utilise various combinations of these principles in an attempt to engage with underserved populations. It is also important to note that the term “underserved populations” reflects a heterogenous group defined by socio-economic status and a range of cultural factors, and that the whole population face the same barriers in accessing and engaging with dSSP as underserved groups but in the latter, they are exacerbated by socio-economic stressors and conflict with cultural expectations and requirements. This means that focussing on understanding and applying these design principles to meet the needs of localised underserved populations will likely generate learning that will improve adherence that can be applied to more affluent and culturally homogenous populations.

The time frame (five years) and geographical boundaries of the evidence we presented reflect the changing care environment and the growing interest in reaching underserved populations. Although much of the work we describe was undertaken in the USA within an insurance model of healthcare delivery, it can be argued that many of the barriers relating to accessing underserved populations are similar to those in other nations. To overcome the potential limitations of taking a cross-sectional approach to surveying the field, we have taken care to place our findings and recommendations in the context of existing knowledge, fulfilling our aim of producing a concise and coherent review of current evidence when considering the design of dSSP for underserved populations.

Implications for future practice

Co-production and personalisation

The review demonstrated the wide range of options available in designing dSSP and the need to tailor programmes for underserved populations to reflect personal preferences and specific socio-cultural contexts [86, 87]. In considering the range of elements and adaptations available when compiling such programmes, it is important they are co-designed by a representative selection of stakeholders.

Ultimately the compilation of the dSSP must be consensually agreed by multiple stakeholders including commissioners, facilitators and target populations to ensure they remain acceptable, appropriate, and logistically and economically feasible [35]. Using co-design allows equal opportunity for all involved to reflect on and consensually agree the most appropriate elements and design solutions for any given programme [93]. This has been successfully used in the individual elements of dSSP in a range of underserved populations [30], for example in the creation of educational materials in Brazil [45, 46], lifestyle interventions in ethnic minorities in Finland [175] and the USA [176], and the design of mHealth innovations [177].

To support the compilation of the various elements into a coherent and socio-culturally sensitive programme for underserved populations with diabetes, two frameworks have emerged. Firstly, Lagisetty et al. have developed a framework that assesses the overall effectiveness of culturally tailored interventions for reaching underserved populations with diabetes [178]. It does this by unpacking the adaptation of the dSSP in terms of four domains Facilitator, Language, Location, and Message (or content) [178]. Secondly, the “Six G” framework developed by Gumber and Gumber performs a similar function in structuring the design of SSP for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups in the UK, namely Gender, Generation, Geographic origin, Genes, God (religion) and Gaps in knowledge and economic resources, [165]. The Diversity in Diabetes study will be using co-production techniques and a structured, framework-based approach to design a novel dSSP for CYPD from underserved populations, informed by the design principles outlined above. However, its precise configurations and the elements it contains will be a function of the co-design process.

Health care provider factors

If health care providers are to be actively engaged in co-production, there is a need to change long-standing attitudes toward self-management in the clinical workforce where previous evidence suggests dSSP can still be viewed as a “last resort” following major glycaemic crises or when traditional clinical treatment fails [36, 179, 180]. In convincing care providers of the legitimacy of supporting self-management as a professional priority, it has been suggested that practical support and time is ring-fenced to help them adapt systems and processes to more formally accommodate self-management support [181, 182]. It is also increasingly understood that to support self-management in underserved populations with diabetes, it is particularly important that clinicians are equipped to negotiate local socio-cultural influences on self-management behaviours [85] and such cultural competence should be embedded as a key skill set in delivering diabetes care [183].

Service-level factors

All of these design adaptations and the resulting dSSP will only be effective where the wider elements of the local health care system actively support their implementation [184, 185]. However, the financial implications of committing to the redesign of care processes and realignment of professional roles to support dSSP are considerable. Although economic analyses have found that the cost of developing and delivering dSSP is at least in part, offset by a subsequent reduction in health service utilisation [75, 186, 187], (aided by the use of novel modes of delivery such as mHealth [188] or pharmacies [189]) evidence of these savings is weak [68]. Too few studies that explore dSSP include explicit intervention costs (we found only one that directly addressed the issue) and senior-decision makers and commissioners remain reluctant to commit funding and resources to the long-term rewards of supporting dSSP in underserved populations [68]. One way this hesitancy might be reduced is by better targeted incentives realigned to address the challenges posed by cultural beliefs and practices [92, 190]. It has also been suggested previously that commissioners would also benefit from more concerted efforts to improve cultural understanding of local populations by strengthening and formalising relationships with local groups, religious bodies, and community leaders [93].

Conclusions

We have described how evidence-based design of a programme of support can be used to address the challenges faced by underserved populations. It is important that any nascent programme attempting to reach the underserved, should engage with target populations in the consensual identification of potential solutions and the design of more precisely localised dSSPs.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

CYPD:

Children and young people with diabetes

CHW:

Community-based health workers

CINAHL:

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

dSSP:

Diabetes self-management support programmes

EPPI:

Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre

GUI:

Graphical user interfaces

HbA1c:

Haemoglobin A1c

HCP:

Health Care Professionals

PICO:

Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

T1DM:

Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

T2DM:

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

UK:

United Kingdom

USA:

United States of America

References

  1. Whicher CA, O’Neill S, Holt RIG. Diabetes in the UK: 2019. Diabet Med. 2020;37(2):242–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J, et al. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Research NIfH. Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research: Guidance from the NIHR INCLUDE project. 2020.

  4. Khanolkar AR, Amin R, Taylor-Robinson D, Viner RM, Warner J, Gevers EF, et al. Ethnic differences in early glycemic control in childhood-onset type 1 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care. 2017;5(1):e000423.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett T, Jalaludin MY, Turan S, Hafez M, Shehadeh N, Panel NNPTDGE. Rapid progression of type 2 diabetes and related complications in children and young people—A literature review. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(2):158–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Frey MA, Templin T, Ellis D, Gutai J, Podolski CL. Predicting metabolic control in the first 5 year after diagnosis for youths with type 1 diabetes: the role of ethnicity and family structure. Pediatr Diabetes. 2007;8(4):220–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Holmes CS, Swift EE, Chen R, Hershberger A. Demographic risk factors, mediators, and moderators in youths’ diabetes metabolic control. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32(1):39–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Warner JT. Highs and lows of diabetic care: lessons from a national audit. Arch Dis Child. 2018;103(2):121–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jonkman NH, Schuurmans MJ, Groenwold RHH, Hoes AW, Trappenburg JCA. Identifying components of self-management interventions that improve health-related quality of life in chronically ill patients: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(7):1087–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Horwitz RI, Horwitz SM. Adherence to treatment and health outcomes. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(16):1863–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nolte S, Elsworth GR, Sinclair AJ, Osborne RH. The extent and breadth of benefits from participating in chronic disease self-management courses: a national patient-reported outcomes survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(3):351–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Riegel B, Westland H, Iovino P, Barelds I, Bruins Slot J, Stawnychy MA, et al. Characteristics of self-care interventions for patients with a chronic condition: a scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;116:103713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Skinner TC, Carey ME, Cradock S, Daly H, Davies MJ, Doherty Y, et al. Diabetes education and self-management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND): process modelling of pilot study. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64(1–3):369–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Deakin T, Cade J, Williams R, Greenwood D. Structured patient education: the diabetes X-PERT Programme makes a difference. Diabet Med. 2006;23(9):944–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Group DS. Training in flexible, intensive insulin management to enable dietary freedom in people with type 1 diabetes: dose adjustment for normal eating (DAFNE) randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2002;325(7367):746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chatterjee S, Davies MJ, Heller S, Speight J, Snoek FJ, Khunti K. Diabetes structured self-management education programmes: a narrative review and current innovations. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2018;6(2):130–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Educators AAoD. An effective model of diabetes care and education: revising the AADE7 self-care Behaviors®. Diabetes Educ. 2020;46(2):139–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chaplin S, National Diabetes. Audit 2015–2016 shows variations in care processes and targets. Practical Diabetes. 2017;34(2):58–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen M, Moran LJ, Harrison CL, Ukke GG, Sood S, Bennett CJ, et al. Ethnic differences in response to lifestyle intervention for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2022;23(1):e13340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Campbell JA, Walker RJ, Smalls BL, Egede LE. Glucose control in diabetes: the impact of racial differences on monitoring and outcomes. Endocrine. 2012;42(3):471–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zeh P, Sandhu HK, Cannaby AM, Sturt JA. Cultural barriers impeding ethnic minority groups from accessing effective diabetes care services: a systematic review of observational studies. Divers Equal Health Care. 2014;11(1):9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, Chin MH, Gary-Webb TL, Navas-Acien A, et al. Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(1):258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Organization WH. Social determinants of health. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2008.

  24. Koh HK, Sondik E, Huang D, Klein R, Satcher D, Ford E, et al. A 2020 vision for healthy people. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1653.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Remington PL, Catlin BB, Gennuso KP. The County Health Rankings: rationale and methods. Popul Health Metrics. 2015;13(1):11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. National Academies of Sciences E. Medicine. A framework for educating health professionals to address the social determinants of health. National Academies Press; 2016.

  27. Hardman R, Begg S, Spelten E. What impact do chronic disease self-management support interventions have on health inequity gaps related to socioeconomic status: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hardman R, Begg S, Spelten E. Self-efficacy in disadvantaged communities: perspectives of healthcare providers and clients. Chronic Illn. 2021:17423953211049751.

  29. Wilson C, Alam R, Latif S, Knighting K, Williamson S, Beaver K. Patient access to healthcare services and optimisation of self-management for ethnic minority populations living with diabetes: a systematic review. Health Soc Care Commun. 2012;20(1):1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rose M, Aronow L, Breen S, Tully C, Hilliard ME, Butler AM, et al. Considering culture: a review of pediatric behavioral intervention research in type 1 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2018;18(4):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ruddock JS, Poindexter M, Gary-Webb TL, Walker EA, Davis NJ. Innovative strategies to improve diabetes outcomes in disadvantaged populations. Diabet Med. 2016;33(6):723–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Hecke A, Heinen M, Fernández-Ortega P, Graue M, Hendriks JM, Høy B, et al. Systematic literature review on effectiveness of self‐management support interventions in patients with chronic conditions and low socio‐economic status. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(4):775–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. de Wit M, Trief P, Huber J, Willaing I. State of the art: understanding and integration of the social context in diabetes care. Diabet Med. 2020;37(3):473–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Diversity in Diabetes (UK). Diversity in Diabetes 2022 [Available from: https://www.diversityindiabetes.org.uk/.

  35. Donetto S, Pierri P, Tsianakas V, Robert G. Experience-based co-design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory design in the public sector. Des J. 2015;18(2):227–48.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peyrot M, Barnett A, Meneghini L, Schumm-Draeger PM. Insulin adherence behaviours and barriers in the multinational global attitudes of patients and Physicians in insulin therapy study. Diabet Med. 2012;29(5):682–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Mansyur CL, Rustveld LO, Nash SG, Jibaja-Weiss ML. Social factors and barriers to self-care adherence in hispanic men and women with diabetes. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(6):805–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nam S, Chesla C, Stotts NA, Kroon L, Janson SL. Barriers to diabetes management: patient and provider factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;93(1):1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jaam M, Awaisu A, Mohamed Ibrahim MI, Kheir N. A holistic conceptual framework model to describe medication adherence in and guide interventions in diabetes mellitus. Res Social Administrative Pharm. 2018;14(4):391–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inform Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.

  42. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Jindal P, MacDermid JC. Assessing reading levels of health information: uses and limitations of flesch formula. Educ Health. 2017;30(1):84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Raynor DK, Dickinson D. Key principles to guide development of consumer medicine information—content analysis of information design texts. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(4):700–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Moura DdJM, Moura NdS, Menezes LCGd, Barros AA, Guedes MVC. Development of a booklet on insulin therapy for children with diabetes mellitus type 1. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem. 2017;70:7–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Roquini GR, Avelar NRN, Santos TR, Oliveira MRAdC, Galindo Neto NM, Sousa, MRMGCd et al. Construction and validation of an educational booklet to promote adherence to oral antidiabetics. Cogitare Enfermagem. 2021;26.

  47. Camargo MC, Barros RM, Barros VT, editors. Visual design checklist for graphical user interface (GUI) evaluation. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing; 2018.

  48. Norgaard O, Furstrand D, Klokker L, Karnoe A, Batterham R, Kayser L, et al. The e-health literacy framework: a conceptual framework for characterizing e-health users and their interaction with e-health systems. Knowl Manage E-Learning: Int J. 2015;7(4):522–40.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bonet Olivencia S, Rao AH, Smith A, Sasangohar F. Eliciting requirements for a diabetes self-management application for Underserved populations: a Multi-Stakeholder Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;19(1):127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Stanton-Fay SH, Hamilton K, Chadwick PM, Lorencatto F, Gianfrancesco C, de Zoysa N, et al. The DAFNE plus programme for sustained type 1 diabetes self management: intervention development using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Diabet Med. 2021;38(5):e14548.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Powers MA, Bardsley JK, Cypress M, Funnell MM, Harms D, Hess-Fischl A, et al. Diabetes self-management education and support in adults with type 2 diabetes: a consensus report of the american Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care & Education specialists, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of PAs, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the american pharmacists Association. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(7):1636–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim MT, Kim KB, Huh B, Nguyen T, Han H-R, Bone LR, et al. The effect of a community-based self-help intervention: korean Americans with type 2 diabetes. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(5):726–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Mayberry LS, Lyles CR, Oldenburg B, Osborn CY, Parks M, Peek ME. mHealth interventions for disadvantaged and vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2019;19(12):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Anderson A, O’Connell SS, Thomas C, Chimmanamada R. Telehealth Interventions to improve Diabetes Management among Black and hispanic patients: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities; 2022.

  55. Raymond JK, Reid MW, Fox S, Garcia JF, Miller D, Bisno D, et al. Adapting home telehealth group appointment model (CoYoT1 clinic) for a low SES, publicly insured, minority young adult population with type 1 diabetes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020;88:105896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Pekmezaris R, Williams MS, Pascarelli B, Finuf KD, Harris YT, Myers AK, et al. Adapting a home telemonitoring intervention for underserved Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes: an acceptability and feasibility study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20(1):324.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Mayer VL, Vangeepuram N, Fei K, Hanlen-Rosado EA, Arniella G, Negron R, et al. Outcomes of a weight loss intervention to prevent diabetes among low-income residents of east harlem. Volume 46. New York: Health Education & Behavior; 2019. pp. 1073–82. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Slater A, Cantero PJ, Alvarez G, Cervantes BS, Bracho A, Billimek J. Latino Health Access: comparative effectiveness of a community-initiated Promotor/a-Led diabetes self-management education program. Fam Community Health. 2022;45(1):34–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Gutierrez AP, Fortmann AL, Savin K, Clark TL, Gallo LC. Effectiveness of diabetes self-management Education Programs for US Latinos at improving emotional distress: a systematic review. Diabetes Educ. 2019;45(1):13–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Allen JO, Concha JB, Mejía Ruiz MJ, Rapp A, Montgomery J, Smith J, et al. Engaging Underserved Community Members in Diabetes Self-Management: evidence from the YMCA of Greater Richmond Diabetes Control Program. Diabetes Educ. 2020;46(2):169–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Winkley K, Evwierhoma C, Amiel SA, Lempp HK, Ismail K, Forbes A. Patient explanations for non-attendance at structured diabetes education sessions for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study. Diabet Med. 2015;32(1):120–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Winkley K, Upsher R, Stahl D, Pollard D, Kasera A, Brennan A, et al. Psychological interventions to improve self-management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2020;24(28):1–232.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Odgers-Jewell K, Ball LE, Kelly JT, Isenring EA, Reidlinger DP, Thomas R. Effectiveness of group-based self-management education for individuals with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analyses and meta-regression. Diabet Med. 2017;34(8):1027–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Christensen NI, Drejer S, Burns K, Lundstrøm SL, Hempler NF. A qualitative exploration of facilitators and barriers for diabetes self-management behaviors among persons with type 2 diabetes from a socially disadvantaged area. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:569–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Schaffler J, Leung K, Tremblay S, Merdsoy L, Belzile E, Lambrou A, et al. The effectiveness of self-management interventions for individuals with low health literacy and/or low income: a descriptive systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(4):510–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Turner J, Martin G, Hudson N, Shaw L, Huddlestone L, Weis C, et al. Using normalisation process theory (NPT) to develop an intervention to improve referral and uptake rates for self-management education for patients with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kowitt SD, Ayala GX, Cherrington AL, Horton LA, Safford MM, Soto S, et al. Examining the support peer supporters provide using structural equation modeling: nondirective and directive support in diabetes management. Ann Behav Med. 2017;51(6):810–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rawal L, Sahle BW, Smith BJ, Kanda K, Owusu-Addo E, Renzaho AM. Lifestyle interventions for type 2 diabetes management among migrants and ethnic minorities living in industrialized countries: a systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care. 2021;9(1):e001924.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Kowitt SD, Urlaub D, Guzman-Corrales L, Mayer M, Ballesteros J, Graffy J, et al. Emotional support for diabetes management: an international cross-cultural study. Diabetes Educ. 2015;41(3):291–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Nelson LA, Greevy RA, Spieker A, Wallston KA, Elasy TA, Kripalani S, et al. Effects of a tailored text messaging intervention among diverse adults with type 2 diabetes: evidence from the 15-Month REACH Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(1):26–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Presley C, Agne A, Shelton T, Oster R, Cherrington A. Mobile-Enhanced peer support for African Americans with type 2 diabetes: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(10):2889–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Safford MM, Andreae S, Cherrington AL, Martin MY, Halanych J, Lewis M, et al. Peer coaches to Improve Diabetes Outcomes in Rural Alabama: a Cluster Randomized Trial. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(Suppl 1):18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Castillo-Hernandez KG, Laviada-Molina H, Hernandez-Escalante VM, Molina-Segui F, Mena-Macossay L, Caballero AE. Peer support added to Diabetes Education improves metabolic control and quality of life in mayan adults living with type 2 diabetes: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Can J Diabetes. 2021;45(3):206–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Gray KE, Hoerster KD, Taylor L, Krieger J, Nelson KM. Improvements in physical activity and some dietary behaviors in a community health worker-led diabetes self-management intervention for adults with low incomes: results from a randomized controlled trial. Translational Behav Med. 2021;11(12):2144–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ye W, Kuo S, Kieffer EC, Piatt G, Sinco B, Palmisano G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a diabetes self-management education and support intervention led by Community Health Workers and peer leaders: projections from the racial and ethnic approaches to Community Health Detroit Trial. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(5):1108–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Marsh Z, Nguyen Y, Teegala Y, Cotter VT. Diabetes management among underserved older adults through telemedicine and community health workers. J Am Association Nurse Practitioners. 2022;34(1).

  77. Chavez B, Kosirog E, Brunner JM. Impact of a bilingual pharmacy Diabetes Service in a federally qualified Health Center. Ann Pharmacother. 2018;52(12):1218–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Wee PJL, Kwan YH, Loh DHF, Phang JK, Puar TH, Østbye T, et al. Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for diabetes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(8):e25002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Hendriks M, Rademakers J. Relationships between patient activation, disease-specific knowledge and health outcomes among people with diabetes; a survey study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Laursen DH, Christensen KB, Christensen U, Frølich A. Assessment of short and long-term outcomes of diabetes patient education using the health education impact questionnaire (HeiQ). BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Hildebrand JA, Billimek J, Lee J-A, Sorkin DH, Olshansky EF, Clancy SL, et al. Effect of diabetes self-management education on glycemic control in latino adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(2):266–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Wadi NM, Asantewa-Ampaduh S, Rivas C, Goff LM. Culturally tailored lifestyle interventions for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes in adults of black african ancestry: a systematic review of tailoring methods and their effectiveness. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25(2):422–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Torres-Ruiz M, Robinson-Ector K, Attinson D, Trotter J, Anise A, Clauser S. A portfolio analysis of culturally tailored trials to address health and healthcare disparities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):1859.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Dahal PK, Hosseinzadeh H. Association of health literacy and diabetes self-management: a systematic review. Aust J Prim Health. 2020;25(6):526–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Patel T, Umeh K, Poole H, Vaja I, Newson L. Cultural Identity Conflict informs Engagement with Self-Management Behaviours for south asian patients living with Type-2 diabetes: a critical interpretative synthesis of qualitative Research Studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5).

  86. Glazier RH, Bajcar J, Kennie NR, Willson K. A systematic review of interventions to improve Diabetes Care in socially disadvantaged populations. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(7):1675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Patel N, Willis A, Stone M, Barber S, Gray L, Davies M, et al. Developing a Conceptually Equivalent type 2 diabetes risk score for indian Gujaratis in the UK. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:8107108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Hill-Briggs F. 2018 Health Care & Education Presidential address: the american Diabetes Association in the era of health care transformation. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(3):352–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Sunaert P, Vandekerckhove M, Bastiaens H, Feyen L, Vanden Bussche P, De Maeseneer J, et al. Why do GPs hesitate to refer diabetes patients to a self-management education program: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Cauch-Dudek K, Victor JC, Sigmond M, Shah BR. Disparities in attendance at diabetes self-management education programs after diagnosis in Ontario, Canada: a cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Mathew R, Gucciardi E, De Melo M, Barata P. Self-management experiences among men and women with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a qualitative analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Haas L, Maryniuk M, Beck J, Cox CE, Duker P, Edwards L, et al. National standards for diabetes self-management education and support. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(Supplement1):144–S53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Goff LM, Moore A, Harding S, Rivas C. Providing culturally sensitive diabetes self-management education and support for black african and caribbean communities: a qualitative exploration of the challenges experienced by healthcare practitioners in inner London. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care. 2020;8(2):e001818.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Sweller J, Van Merrienboer JJ, Paas FG. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychol Rev. 1998;10(3):251–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Ley P. Communicating with patients: improving communication, satisfaction and compliance. Croom Helm; 1988.

  96. Hoffmann T, Worrall L. Designing effective written health education materials: considerations for health professionals. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(19):1166–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Doak CC, Doak LG, Jane H. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. AJN The American Journal of Nursing. 1996;96:12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. McCarthy DM, Waite KR, Curtis LM, Engel KG, Baker DW, Wolf MS. What did the doctor say? Health literacy and recall of medical instructions. Med Care. 2012;50(4):277.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Resmini A, Rosati L. A brief history of information architecture. J Inform Archit. 2012;3(2):33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Haun JN, Valerio MA, McCormack LA, Sørensen K, Paasche-Orlow MK. Health literacy measurement: an inventory and descriptive summary of 51 instruments. J health communication. 2014;19(sup2):302–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Rohret L, Ferguson KJ. Effective use of patient education illustrations. Patient Educ Couns. 1990;15(1):73–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Buxton T. Effective ways to improve health education materials. J Health Educ. 1999;30(1):47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Christy SM, Gwede CK, Sutton SK, Chavarria E, Davis SN, Abdulla R, et al. Health literacy among medically underserved: the role of demographic factors, social influence, and religious beliefs. J health communication. 2017;22(11):923–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Campbell JL. Healthcare experience design: a conceptual and methodological framework for understanding the effects of usability on the access, delivery, and receipt of healthcare. Knowl Manage E-Learning: Int J. 2020;12(4):505–20.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Eslami M, Firoozabadi M, Homayounvala E. User preferences for adaptive user interfaces in health information systems. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2018;17(4):875–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Miller K, Mosby D, Capan M, Kowalski R, Ratwani R, Noaiseh Y, et al. Interface, information, interaction: a narrative review of design and functional requirements for clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(5):585–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Galitz WO. The essential guide to user interface design: an introduction to GUI design principles and techniques. John Wiley & Sons; 2007.

  108. Rush SR, Paasche-Orlow MK. Incorporating health literacy into larger operational environments. Taylor & Francis; 2011. pp. 9–10.

  109. Poduval S, Ahmed S, Marston L, Hamilton F, Murray E. Crossing the Digital divide in Online Self-Management support: analysis of usage data from HeLP-Diabetes. JMIR Diabetes. 2018;3(4):e10925.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Daniëls NEM, Hochstenbach LMJ, van Zelst C, van Bokhoven MA, Delespaul PAEG, Beurskens AJHM. Factors that influence the Use of Electronic Diaries in Health Care: scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(6):e19536.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Adu MD, Malabu UH, Malau-Aduli AEO, Malau-Aduli BS. Enablers and barriers to effective diabetes self-management: a multi-national investigation. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0217771.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Battersby M, Von Korff M, Schaefer J, Davis C, Ludman E, Greene SM, et al. Twelve evidence-based principles for implementing self-management support in primary care. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(12):561–70.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Carey ME, Agarwal S, Horne R, Davies M, Slevin M, Coates V. Exploring organizational support for the provision of structured self-management education for people with type 2 diabetes: findings from a qualitative study. Diabet Med. 2019;36(6):761–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Martos-Cabrera MB, Membrive-Jiménez MJ, Suleiman-Martos N, Mota-Romero E, Cañadas-De la Fuente GA, Gómez-Urquiza JL, et al. Games and Health Education for Diabetes Control: a systematic review with Meta-analysis. Healthc (Basel). 2020;8(4):399.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Fisher-Grace K, Turk MT, Anthony MK, Chia LR. Use of Personal Health Records to support diabetes Self-management: an integrative review. Comput Inf Nurs. 2021;39(6):298–305.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Doupis J, Festas G, Tsilivigos C, Efthymiou V, Kokkinos A. Smartphone-based technology in diabetes management. Diabetes Therapy. 2020;11(3):607–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Fitzner KK, Heckinger E, Tulas KM, Specker J, McKoy J. Telehealth technologies: changing the way we deliver efficacious and cost-effective diabetes self-management education. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014;25(4):1853–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Kitsiou S, Paré G, Jaana M, Gerber B. Effectiveness of mHealth interventions for patients with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0173160.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Hildebrand JA, Billimek J, Lee JA, Sorkin DH, Olshansky EF, Clancy SL, et al. Effect of diabetes self-management education on glycemic control in latino adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(2):266–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Horigan G, Davies M, Findlay-White F, Chaney D, Coates V. Reasons why patients referred to diabetes education programmes choose not to attend: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2017;34(1):14–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Appuswamy AV, Desimone ME. Managing diabetes in hard to Reach populations: a review of Telehealth Interventions. Curr Diab Rep. 2020;20(7):28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Turnbull S, Cabral C, Hay A, Lucas PJ. Health Equity in the effectiveness of web-based Health Interventions for the self-care of people with Chronic Health Conditions: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e17849.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Agarwal S, Crespo-Ramos G, Leung SL, Finnan M, Park T, McCurdy K, et al. Solutions to address inequity in Diabetes Technology Use in Type 1 diabetes: results from Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Co-creation Workshops. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2022;24(6):381–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Hermanns N, Ehrmann D, Finke-Groene K, Kulzer B. Trends in diabetes self‐management education: where are we coming from and where are we going? A narrative review. Diabet Med. 2020;37(3):436–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Hwee J, Cauch-Dudek K, Victor JC, Ng R, Shah BR. Diabetes education through group classes leads to better care and outcomes than individual counselling in adults: a population-based cohort study. Can J Public Health. 2014;105(3):e192–e7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Mensing CR, Norris SL. Group education in diabetes: effectiveness and implementation. Diabetes Spectr. 2003;16(2):96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Mielck A, Reitmeir P, Rathmann W. Knowledge about diabetes and participation in diabetes training courses: the need for improving health care for diabetes patients with low SES. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2006;114(05):240–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Zoffmann V, Kirkevold M. Life versus disease in difficult diabetes care: conflicting perspectives disempower patients and professionals in problem solving. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(6):750–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Zahedi M, Dehvan F, Albatineh AN, Gheshlagh RG. Knowledge of type II Diabetic Patients about their diabetes: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Adv Nurs Midwifery. 2020;29(1):36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Chircop J, Sheffield D, Kotera Y. Systematic review of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes. Nurs Res. 2021;70(6):487–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Bullard T, Ji M, An R, Trinh L, Mackenzie M, Mullen SP. A systematic review and meta-analysis of adherence to physical activity interventions among three chronic conditions: cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):636.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Nicholas A, Soto-Mota A, Lambert H, Collins A. Restricting carbohydrates and calories in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of the effectiveness of” low carbohydrate” interventions with differing energy levels. medRxiv. 2021.

  133. Santorelli ML, Ekanayake RM, Wilkerson-Leconte L. Peer reviewed: participation in a diabetes self-management class among adults with diabetes, New Jersey 2013–2015. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14.

  134. Rinker J, Dickinson JK, Litchman ML, Williams AS, Kolb LE, Cox C, et al. The 2017 diabetes educator and the diabetes self-management education national practice survey. Diabetes Educ. 2018;44(3):260–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Hibbard J, Gilburt H. Supporting people to manage their health: an introduction to patient activation. 2014.

  136. Dineen-Griffin S, Garcia-Cardenas V, Williams K, Benrimoj SI. Helping patients help themselves: a systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0220116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Silver I. Bridging the gap: person centred, place-based self-management support. Future Healthc J. 2018;5(3):188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Kurani SS, Lampman MA, Funni SA, Giblon RE, Inselman JW, Shah ND, et al. Association between Area-Level Socioeconomic Deprivation and Diabetes Care Quality in US Primary Care Practices. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(12):e2138438–e.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Davies MJ, Kristunas CA, Alshreef A, Dixon S, Eborall H, Glab A, et al. The impact of an intervention to increase uptake to structured self-management education for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care (the embedding package), compared to usual care, on glycaemic control: study protocol for a mixed methods study incorporating a wait-list cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Dennis C-L. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40(3):321–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Sokol R, Fisher E. Peer support for the hardly reached: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(7):e1–e8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Fisher EB, Boothroyd RI, Coufal MM, Baumann LC, Mbanya JC, Rotheram-Borus MJ, et al. Peer support for self-management of diabetes improved outcomes in international settings. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(1):130–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Warshaw H, Hodgson L, Heyman M, Oser TK, Walker HR, Deroze P, et al. The role and value of ongoing and peer support in diabetes care and education. Diabetes Educ. 2019;45(6):569–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Liang D, Jia R, Zhou X, Lu G, Wu Z, Yu J, et al. The effectiveness of peer support on self-efficacy and self-management in people with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(4):760–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Azmiardi A, Murti B, Febrinasari RP, Tamtomo DG. The effect of peer support in diabetes self-management education on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Health. 2021;43:e2021090.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Verma I, Gopaldasani V, Jain V, Chauhan S, Chawla R, Verma PK et al. The impact of peer coach-led type 2 diabetes mellitus interventions on glycaemic control and self-management outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim Care Diabetes. 2022.

  147. Hawkins J, Sengupta S, Kloss K, Kurnick K, Ewen A, Nwawkwo R, et al. Michigan men’s diabetes project II: protocol for peer-led diabetes self-management education and long-term support in black men. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(3):e0277733.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. Organization WH. Strengthening the performance of community health workers in primary health care: report of a WHO Study Group [meeting held in Geneva from 2 to 9 December. 1987]: World Health Organization; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Egbujie BA, Delobelle PA, Levitt N, Puoane T, Sanders D, van Wyk B. Role of community health workers in type 2 diabetes mellitus self-management: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6):e0198424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Presley B, Groot W, Pavlova M. Pharmacy-led interventions to improve medication adherence among adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(9):1057–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Aguilera A, Figueroa CA, Hernandez-Ramos R, Sarkar U, Cemballi A, Gomez-Pathak L, et al. mHealth app using machine learning to increase physical activity in diabetes and depression: clinical trial protocol for the DIAMANTE Study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):e034723.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Lim S, Wyatt LC, Mammen S, Zanowiak JM, Mohaimin S, Goldfeld KS, et al. The DREAM Initiative: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial testing an integrated electronic health record and community health worker intervention to promote weight loss among south asian patients at risk for diabetes. Trials. 2019;20(1):635.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Moffatt S, Wildman J, Pollard TM, Penn L, O’Brien N, Pearce MS, et al. Evaluating the impact of a community-based social prescribing intervention on people with type 2 diabetes in North East England: mixed-methods study protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(1):e026826.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Fortmann AL, Philis-Tsimikas A, Euyoque JA, Clark TL, Vital DG, Sandoval H, et al. Medical assistant health coaching (“MAC”) for type 2 diabetes in diverse primary care settings: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial protocol. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021;100:106164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Tørslev MK, Andersen PT, Nielsen AV, Petri M, Termansen T, Vardinghus-Nielsen H, et al. Tingbjerg changing diabetes: a protocol for a long-term supersetting initiative to promote health and prevent type 2 diabetes among people living in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse neighbourhood in Copenhagen, Denmark. BMJ open. 2021;11(9):e048846.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  156. Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the context and implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Harris S, Mulnier H, Amiel S. The barriers to uptake of Diabetes Education Study. The Lancet. 2017;389:44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Gregg JA, Callaghan GM, Hayes SC, Glenn-Lawson JL. Improving diabetes self-management through acceptance, mindfulness, and values: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007;75(2):336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Wang R, Yan W, Du M, Tao L, Liu J. The effect of physical activity interventions on cognition function in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diab/Metab Res Rev. 2021:e3443.

  160. Byrne M, O’Connell A, Egan AM, Dinneen SF, Hynes L, O’Hara MC, et al. A core outcomes set for clinical trials of interventions for young adults with type 1 diabetes: an international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study. Trials. 2017;18(1):602.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  161. Kumagai AK, Murphy EA, Ross PT. Diabetes stories: use of patient narratives of diabetes to teach patient-centered care. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2009;14(3):315–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Ross S, Benavides-Vaello S, Schumann L, Haberman M. Issues that impact type‐2 diabetes self‐management in rural communities. J Am Association Nurse Practitioners. 2015;27(11):653–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Greenhalgh T, Collard A, Campbell-Richards D, Vijayaraghavan S, Malik F, Morris J, et al. Storylines of self-management: narratives of people with diabetes from a multiethnic inner city population. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(1):37–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Shiju R, Akhil A, Thankachan S, Tuomilehto J, Al Arouj M, Bennakhi A. Safety Assessment of glucose-lowering drugs and importance of Structured Education during Ramadan: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Diabetes Res. 2022;2022:3846253.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  165. Gumber A, Gumber L. Improving prevention, monitoring and management of diabetes among ethnic minorities: contextualizing the six G’s approach. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):774.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Davidson EM, Liu JJ, Bhopal R, White M, Johnson MR, Netto G, et al. Behavior change interventions to improve the health of racial and ethnic minority populations: a tool kit of adaptation approaches. Milbank Q. 2013;91(4):811–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Levin-Zamir D, Wills J. Health literacy, culture and community. Health Lit context: Int Perspect. 2012;99:123.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Bhurji N, Javer J, Gasevic D, Khan N. Improving management of type 2 diabetes in south asian patients: a systematic review of intervention studies. BMJ open. 2016;6(4):e008986.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. Wilkinson E, Waqar M, Sinclair A, Randhawa G. Meeting the challenge of diabetes in ageing and diverse populations: a review of the literature from the UK. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:8030627.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Sidhu MS, Gale NK, Gill P, Marshall T, Jolly K. A critique of the design, implementation, and delivery of a culturally-tailored self-management education intervention: a qualitative evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  171. Pilkington K, Loef M, Polley M. Searching for real-world effectiveness of health care innovations: scoping study of social prescribing for diabetes. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(2):e6431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Rinner C, Sauter SK, Endel G, Heinze G, Thurner S, Klimek P, et al. Improving the informational continuity of care in diabetes mellitus treatment with a nationwide Shared EHR system: estimates from austrian claims data. Int J Med Informatics. 2016;92:44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Bhopal R, Douglas A. Mobilising the scottish south asian communities in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: developing a south Asian Cardiovascular Diseases and Diabetes Task Force (Pilot project). 2016.

  174. Baron J, Hirani S, Newman S. Challenges in patient recruitment, implementation, and fidelity in a mobile telehealth study. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2016;22(5):400–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Wikström K, Hussein I, Virtanen E, Nekouei Marvi Langari M, Mattila E, Lindström J. Culturally sensitive lifestyle intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes among Somalis in Finland: a pilot study using JA CHRODIS Recommendations and Criteria. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2021;57(1):80–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Hawley CN, Huber CM, Best LG, Howard BV, Umans J, Beresford SAA, et al. Cooking for Health: a healthy food budgeting, purchasing, and cooking skills randomized controlled trial to improve diet among american Indians with type 2 diabetes. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):356.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  177. Cheng C, Beauchamp A, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Applying the electronic health literacy lens: systematic review of electronic health interventions targeted at socially disadvantaged groups. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e18476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  178. Lagisetty PA, Priyadarshini S, Terrell S, Hamati M, Landgraf J, Chopra V, et al. Culturally targeted strategies for diabetes prevention in minority population: a systematic review and framework. Diabetes Educ. 2017;43(1):54–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  179. Brown-Podgorski BL, Shi Y, Vest JR. Patient need and provider referrals to diabetes self-management education. Am J Manag Care. 2021;27(6):e201–e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Mehta S, Mocarski M, Wisniewski T, Gillespie K, Narayan KV, Lang K. Primary care physicians’ utilization of type 2 diabetes screening guidelines and referrals to behavioral interventions: a survey-linked retrospective study. BMJ open diabetes research and care. 2017;5(1):e000406.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Chakravorty I, Daga S, Bamrah J, Nageswaran P, Dhelaria A, George C, et al. Responding to good medical practice Consultation 2022. Sushruta J Health Policy Opin. 2022;15(1):1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Davies F, Wood F, Bullock A, Wallace C, Edwards A. Shifting mindsets: a realist synthesis of evidence from self-management support training. Med Educ. 2018;52(3):274–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Zeh P, Sandhu H, Cannaby AM, Sturt J. The impact of culturally competent diabetes care interventions for improving diabetes-related outcomes in ethnic minority groups: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2012;29(10):1237–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  184. Kennedy A, Rogers A, Bower P. Support for self care for patients with chronic disease. BMJ. 2007;335(7627):968–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. Kennedy A, Rogers A, Chew-Graham C, Blakeman T, Bowen R, Gardner C, et al. Implementation of a self-management support approach (WISE) across a health system: a process evaluation explaining what did and did not work for organisations, clinicians and patients. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. Boren SA, Fitzner KA, Panhalkar PS, Specker JE. Costs and benefits associated with diabetes education a review of the literature. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(1):72–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Siegel KR, Ali MK, Zhou X, Ng BP, Jawanda S, Proia K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to manage diabetes: has the evidence changed since 2008? Diabetes Care. 2020;43(7):1557–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  188. Lee JY, Lee SWH. Telemedicine cost–effectiveness for diabetes management: a systematic review. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(7):492–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Desse TA, Vakil K, Mc Namara K, Manias E. Impact of clinical pharmacy interventions on health and economic outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2021;38(6):e14526.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  190. Bährer-Kohler S, Krebs-Roubicek E. 2009Chronic disease and self-management—aspects of cost efficiency and current policiesSelf Management of Chronic DiseaseSpringer1–13.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Kerry Leeson-Beevers, Sarah Tearne, Charlotte Austin, Natalie Rowland (on behalf of the “Diversity in Diabetes” consortium*).

*Diversity in Diabetes consortium members:

C Austin (Charlotte.austin@diabetes.org.uk), London; T Barrett (t.g.barrett@bham.ac.uk), Birmingham;; F Campbell (drfionacampbell@hotmail.com), Leeds; M Ford-Adams (martha-ford-adams@nhs.net), London; S Greenfield (s.m.greenfield@bham.ac.uk), Birmingham; N Rowland (n.j.ives@bham.ac.uk), Birmingham; R Kandiyali (Rebecca.kandiyali@warwick.ac.uk), Warwick; K Khunti (kk22@leicester.ac.uk), Leicester; K Leeson-Beevers (kerry.leeson@alstrom.org.uk), Halifax; I Litchfield (i.litchfield@bham.ac.uk), Birmingham; T Moore (theresa.moore@bristol.ac.uk), Bristol; P Narendran (p.narendran@bham.ac.uk), Birmingham; V Puthi (vijith.puthi@nhs.net), Peterborough; S Redwood (sabi.redwood@bristol.ac.uk), Bristol; P Sachdev (pooja.sachdev@nuh.nhs.uk), Nottingham; A Searle (a.j.searle@bristol.ac.uk), Bristol; J Shield (j.p.h.shield@bristol.ac.uk, Bristol; P Sundaram (prem.sundaram@uhl-tr.nhs.uk), Leicester; S Tearne (s.clarke2@bham.ac.uk), Birmingham; S Uday (suma.uday@nhs.net), Birmingham; J Wheeler (jess.wheeler@bristol.ac.uk), Bristol; R Willemsen (ruben.willemsen@nhs.net), London.

Funding

This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) Programme (Grant Reference Number NIHR202358. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Sabi Redwood’s and Theresa Moore’s time is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West).

Tim Barrett is supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator Award.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Ian Litchfield & Sheila Greenfield

  2. Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Tim Barrett

  3. Diabetes and Endocrinology, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, B4 6NH, UK

    Tim Barrett & Suma Uday

  4. Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK

    Julian Hamilton-Shield

  5. The Royal Hospital for Children in Bristol, Bristol, BS2 8BJ, UK

    Julian Hamilton-Shield

  6. NIHR Bristol BRC Nutrition Theme, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston Foundation Trust, Bristol, B52 8AE, UK

    Julian Hamilton-Shield & Aidan Searle

  7. The National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK

    Theresa Moore

  8. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS1 1TH, B52 8EA, UK

    Theresa Moore, Sabi Redwood & Jess Wheeler

  9. Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Parth Narendran

  10. Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, B15 2GW, UK

    Parth Narendran

  11. Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Suma Uday

Authors
  1. Ian Litchfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julian Hamilton-Shield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Theresa Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Parth Narendran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sabi Redwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aidan Searle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Suma Uday
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jess Wheeler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sheila Greenfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IL and SG were responsible for the overall design of the review. IL produced the initial draft of the manuscript. This was then edited for content following the recommendations of SG, TB, PN, SR, AS, TM, SU, JW and JHS. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian Litchfield.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Litchfield, I., Barrett, T., Hamilton-Shield, J. et al. Current evidence for designing self-management support for underserved populations: an integrative review using the example of diabetes. Int J Equity Health 22, 188 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-023-01976-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-023-01976-6

Keywords

International Journal for Equity in Health

ISSN: 1475-9276

Contact us