ÜBERMAD

GoalsReview

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.

A woman at a table lifts one finger after another while a calm man listens, a closed booklet between them.
24
studies pooled
4,413
adults with long-term illnesses

The review

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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with 5,289 people · vs people who got no education · they rated themselves · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

  3. 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with 10,043 people · vs people who got no education · they rated themselves · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited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  • Signs that small negative studies went unpublished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)

More on goals

See all