Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Diabetes Spectr. 2016 Feb;29(1):32-6. doi: 10.2337/diaspect.29.1.32.

Conversation Maps and Diabetes Education Groups: An Evaluation at an Australian Rural Health Service.

Author information

1
Central Gippsland Health Service, Sale, Victoria, Australia; Monash University, School of Rural Health, Department of Rural and Indigenous Health, Moe, Victoria, Australia.
2
Monash University, School of Rural Health, Department of Rural and Indigenous Health, Moe, Victoria, Australia; Monash University, School of Rural Health, East Gippsland, Bairnsdale, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The rural Central Gippsland Health Service (CGHS) assists patients with diabetes through the provision of diabetes education. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the CGHS 5-week didactic program and a modified group-participatory Conversation Maps diabetes education program.

METHOD:

A pre- and post-program survey was conducted of clients who attended the two different diabetes education programs. The survey consisted of a self-constructed demographic questionnaire, the Diabetes Knowledge Test, the Diabetes Empowerment Scale, and the Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure.

RESULTS:

For the CGHS program, there were no differences between pre- and post-program surveys in knowledge scores (11.05 ± 3.56 vs. 12.75 ± 4.19, P = 0.0883, n = 20), self-care activities (4.46 ± 1.11 vs. 4.83 ± 0.68, P = 0.0832, n = 12), or empowerment scores (7.16 ± 1.60 vs. 7.92 ± 1.26, P = 0.0540, n = 17). For the modified Conversation Maps program, there were significant improvements between pre- and post-program surveys in knowledge scores (12.42 ± 4.15 vs. 15.54 ± 3.79, P = 0.0004, n = 26), self-care activities (4.74 ± 1.09 vs. 5.32 ± 0.80, P = 0.0139, n = 24), and empowerment scores (6.56 ± 2.19 vs. 8.11 ± 1.46, P = 0.0016, n = 21). The greatest difference between the two programs was observed in knowledge gain (P = 0.0178). Overall, participants were satisfied with both programs, with no difference seen in satisfaction levels (P = 0.9763). A1C results improved in both programs to a mean of 6.7% (P = 0.0071 for CGHS and P = 0.0092 for Conversation Maps).

CONCLUSION:

The modified Conversation Maps program resulted in significant improvements for rural participants.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center