medigraphic.com

2008, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2008; 46 (6)

Impact of Participative Education Strategy Compared with a Traditional Education in the Control of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Arcega-Domínguez A, Celada-Ramírez NA

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 685-690
PDF size: 101.16 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: to compare the impact of participative education (PE) and traditional education (TE) in the knowledge about diabetes, adherence to treatment, quality of life and control of the illness of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2).
Methods: 202 patients with DM2 (both sexes from 20 to 60 years of age) were randomly assigned to groups, the TE or control group, and the PE or expe-rimental group. The group control attended to a monthly meeting in four occasions and the experimental group to six meetings during a week. Both groups were evaluated before and after the intervention, using two instruments; one that evaluates knowledge about diabetes and adherence to treatment, and another for the quality of life and control of the illness with the average of the last four plasmatic glucose levels. The results were analyzed with Student t.
Results: the baseline status of both groups was similar. Grades based on knowledge of the illness at the end of the intervention were 4.05 points higher (p = 0.0001) with PE and 0.09 points higher (p = 0.78) with TE. For adherence to treatment there was an increase of 0.71 (p ‹ 0.0001) with PE, and a decrease of 0.39 (p = 0.50) with TE. As to quality of life, the PE group showed an increase of 10.5 (p = 0.0001), and a decrease of 2.93 (p = 0.002) the TE group. Average serum glucose levels were reduced 46.5 mg/dL (p = 0.0001) after PE and 16.68 mg/dL (p = 0.018) after TE.
Conclusions: the PE intervention is superior to TE for improving knowledge, adherence to treatment and control of the illness in patients with DM2.


REFERENCES

  1. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004;27(5):1047-1053.

  2. Olaiz G, Rojas R, Barquera S, Shamah T, Aguilar C, Cravioto P, et al. Encuesta Nacional de Salud 2000. Tomo 2. La salud de los adultos. Cuernavaca, Morelos, México: Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; 2003.

  3. Secretaría de Salud. Morbilidad, 2000. México: Secretaría de Salud; 2003. p. 25-51.

  4. División Técnica de Información y Estadística en Salud, Dirección de Prestaciones Médicas, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. El IMSS en cifras: El censo de pacientes diabéticos, 2004. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2006;44(4):375-382.

  5. Comité de Educación en Diabetes, Fundación IMSS, A. C. El papel del derechohabiente en la prevención y control de la diabetes mellitus. Rev Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2007;45(2):101-103.

  6. King H, Aubert RE, Herman WH. Global burden of diabetes, 1995-2025: prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections. Diabetes Care 1998; 21:1414-1431.

  7. Viniegra-Velázquez L. Las enfermedades crónicas y la educación. La diabetes mellitus como paradigma. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2006;44(1): 47-59.

  8. Gaytán-Hernández AI, García de Alba-García JE. El significado de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 desde la perspectiva del paciente. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2006;44(2):113-120.

  9. Calderón DC, Garza EM. El paciente diabético y las atribuciones hacia su enfermedad. Rev Salud Pública y Nutrición 2000;1:98-102.

  10. Viniegra-Velázquez L. El camino de la crítica y la educación. Rev Invest Clin 1996;48:139-158.

  11. Aguilar-Mejía E, Viniegra-Velázquez L. El papel cambiante del profesor. Un estudio en grupos de estudiantes de licenciatura en pedagogía. La investigación en la educación: papel de la teoría y la observación. México: IMSS; 1999. p. 107-130.

  12. Pérez-Saleme LM. Apego terapéutico y control metabólico en el paciente diabético, México, tesis de posgrado, Universidad Autónoma de México, 1997.

  13. Lara-Muñoz MC. Conceptualización y medición de la calidad de vida de los pacientes con cáncer. México, tesis doctoral, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1997.

  14. Arcega-Domínguez A, Lara-Muñoz C, Ponce de León-Rosales S. Factores relacionados con la percepción subjetiva de la calidad de vida de pacientes con diabetes. Rev Invest Clin 2005;57:676-684.

  15. Fox C, Kilvert A. Intensive education for lifestyle change in diabetes. BMJ 2003; 327(7424):1120-1121.

  16. Loveman E, Cave C, Green C, Royle O, Dunn N, Waugh N. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of patient education models for diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation. Winchester, England: Health Technology Assessment; 2003. p. 1-190.

  17. Cabrera PC, González PG, Vega LM. Efectos de una intervención educativa sobre los niveles plasmáticos de LDL-colesterol en diabéticos tipo 2. Salud Publica Mex 2001;43:556-562.

  18. Ellis SE, Speroff T, Dittus RS, Brown A, Pichert JW, Elasy TA. Diabetes patient education: a metaanalysis and meta regression. Patient Educ Couns 2004;52(1):97-105.

  19. Lifeng F, Zhang X, Zhu J. Evaluation on effect of diabetic education of the patients. Diabetes 1999; 48(S1):A161.

  20. Dalmau LL MR, García BG, Aguilar MC, Palau GA. Group versus individual education for type 2 diabetes patients. Aten Primaria 2003;32(1):36-41.

  21. Peredo-Rosado P, Gómez-López VM, Sánchez-Nuncio HR, Navarrete-Sánchez A, García-Ruiz ME. Impacto de una estrategia educativa activa participativa en el control de la hipertensión arterial. Rev Med IMSS 2005;43(2)125-129.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com