Teaching led by nurses may lower blood sugar after three months
No differenceThe short version
In the first three months, nurse-led teaching made no clear difference to blood sugar (HbA1c).

- 1,654
- adults with type 2 diabetes
The review
Who took part
Eight trials with 1,654 adults who had type 2 diabetes. Most trials were in Asia, and ages generally ran from 40 to 80.
What they did
People had 4 to 12 nurse-led teaching sessions, one to one or in groups, over 3 months to 2.5 years. The other group had usual care or minimal teaching.
What happened
Blood sugar (HbA1c) was lower than in the other group at 3 to 6 months and after 6 months. The first 3 months showed no clear difference, and confidence in managing diabetes was higher, though the trials varied a lot. Fasting blood sugar fell a little, good cholesterol (HDL) rose a little, and other fats showed no clear change.
What the review found
- No differenceOther outcomes
In the first three months, nurse-led teaching made no clear difference to blood sugar (HbA1c).
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs people who got usual care or minimal teaching · ⚠ the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedOther outcomes
People who had nurse-led teaching had lower blood sugar (HbA1c) at three to six months.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs people who got usual care or minimal teaching · ⚠ the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedOther outcomes
After six months, people who had nurse-led teaching still had lower blood sugar (HbA1c).
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs people who got usual care or minimal teaching · ⚠ the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedMotivation
People who had nurse-led teaching felt more sure about managing their diabetes.
Pooled analysis of 4 studies · vs people who got usual care or minimal teaching · they rated themselves · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; results look too good to be true; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited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- Signs that small negative studies went unpublished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
Impact of nurse-led self-management education on type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis (2025)
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1622988 (opens in a new tab)

