↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Impact of "Conversation Maps" on diabetes distress and self-efficacy of Chinese adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Impact of "Conversation Maps" on diabetes distress and self-efficacy of Chinese adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s95449
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fan Li, Ping Yao, Cunyi Hsue, Jin Xu, Qingqing Lou

Abstract

The objective was to compare Diabetes Conversation Maps-based education and traditional education in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. A total of 53 outpatients were randomized to the intervention group (Diabetes Conversation Maps-based education) and control group (traditional education). In the intervention group, six 1-hour sessions covering diabetes overview, living with diabetes, risk factors and complications of diabetes, starting insulin treatment, foot care, and healthy eating and exercise were provided during 4 weeks. The participants had to attend at least four sessions, followed by a monthly follow-up telephone call in the subsequent 3 months. In the control group, six 1-hour diabetes classes covering similar topics as those in the intervention group were provided over 4 weeks. Each participant needed to attend at least four sessions. A1C was assessed at baseline, 3 months and 6 months after the last educational session/class. Psychosocial metrics and self-care activities were evaluated at baseline and 6 months after the last educational session/class. Forty-six participants finished the study. After 6 months, the total score of diabetes distress scale was significantly lower and total score of diabetes empowerment scale-short form was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group. The 3 months A1C was significantly lower in the intervention group than the control group. However, the 6 months A1C did not reach a statistically significant difference between groups. Compared to traditional education, Diabetes Conversation Maps were more effective in improving psychosocial metrics and 3-month A1C.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 29 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 32 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,648
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,274
of 311,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#70
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.