Teaching helped adults with long-term illness on several outcomes
HelpedThe short version
Across 24 studies, teaching helped people follow treatment more than groups without it.

- 24
- studies pooled
- 4,413
- adults with long-term illnesses
The review
Who took part
The review combined 497 trials of adults aged 18 or over with long-term illnesses, from all medical areas. Lung, heart and metabolic illnesses were the most common.
What they did
Patients were taught about their illness and how to manage it. Health workers or trained helpers gave the teaching in groups, one to one, by phone or online. The other groups did not get it.
What happened
People who got the teaching stuck to treatment more. They were also more confident about managing their illness, and had better psychological health than the other groups. Results on body measures, knowledge and quality of life pointed the same way. The studies often disagreed with each other. Some studies with weak results may be missing. The authors did not rate how sure the results are.
What the review found
- HelpedGoals
Across 24 studies, teaching helped people follow treatment more than groups without it.
Pooled analysis of 24 studies with 4,413 people · vs people who got no education · ⚠ the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedMotivation
Across 37 studies, teaching made people more able to manage their illness than groups without it.
Pooled analysis of 37 studies with 5,289 people · vs people who got no education · they rated themselves · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedOther outcomes
Across 63 studies, teaching improved mental health more than groups without it.
Pooled analysis of 63 studies with 10,043 people · vs people who got no education · they rated themselves · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
How solid is this?
- Large group
- Numbers unreliable
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Signs that small negative studies went unpublished
Source
Effectiveness of therapeutic patient education interventions for chronic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (2023)
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.996528 (opens in a new tab)

