Group programmes may help people with long-term illness look after themselves

The review

1. 01

   Who took part

   39 studies included 8,011 adults with long-term illnesses, such as type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart failure and COPD. The studies came from 15 countries, and Iran had the most, with 13.

2. 02

   What they did

   The programmes aimed to help people take more control of their health. They ran as group sessions, one-to-one sessions or both, often with phone calls afterwards. Comparison groups got usual care or standard health education.

3. 03

   What happened

   Group programmes improved confidence, self-care and empowerment scores in four to six studies each, and average blood sugar (HbA1c) also fell. Over half of the individual-level trials had a high risk of bias, so their results could be skewed. The review did not test for missing studies.

What the review found

1. HelpedMotivation

   In four studies, group sessions gave people more confidence to manage illness than others did.

   • Rule: Practise with a groupused

   Pooled analysis of 4 studies · vs people who got usual care or health education · they rated themselves · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

2. HelpedGoals

   Across four studies, people in group programmes said they did more self-care than comparison groups.

   • Rule: Practise with a groupused

   Pooled analysis of 4 studies · vs people who got usual care or health education · they rated themselves · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

3. HelpedOther outcomes

   Across six studies, group programmes made people feel more in control of their health than comparison groups.

   • Rule: Practise with a groupused

   Pooled analysis of 6 studies with 1,034 people · vs people who got usual care or health education · they rated themselves · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; results look too good to be true; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

Source