A systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes disease management programs

Context. Despite the rapid growth of disease management programs, there are still questions about their efficacy and effectiveness for improving patient outcomes and their ability to reduce costs associated with chronic disease. Objective. To determine the effectiveness of disease management programs on improving the results of HbA1c tests, lipid profiles and systolic blood pressure (SBP) readings among diabetics. These three quantitative measures are widely accepted methods of determining the quality of a patient\u27s diabetes management and the potential for future complications. Data Sources. MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from 1950 to June 2008 using MeSH terms designed to capture all relevant studies. Scopus pearling and hand searching were also done. Only English language articles were selected. Study Selection. Titles and abstracts for the 2347 articles were screened against predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielding 217 articles for full screening. After full article screening, 29 studies were selected for inclusion in the review. Data Extraction. From the selected studies, data extraction included sample size, mean change over baseline, and standard deviation for each control and experimental arm. Results. The pooled results show a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.64%, 95% CI (-0.83 to -0.44), mean SBP reduction of 7.39 mmHg (95% CI to -11.58 to -3.2), mean total cholesterol reduction of 5.74 mg/dL (95% CI, -10.01 to -1.43), and mean LDL cholesterol reduction of 3.74 mg/dL (95% CI, -8.34 to 0.87). Results for HbA1c, SBP and total cholesterol were statistically significant, while the results for LDL cholesterol were not. Conclusions. The findings suggest that disease management programs utilizing five hallmarks of care can be effective at improving intermediate outcomes among diabetics. However, given the significant heterogeneity present, there may be fundamental differences with respect to study-specific interventions and populations that render them inappropriate for meta-analysis