RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose was to compare perceived self-management practices of adult type 2 diabetic patients after completing an American Diabetes Association (ADA) certified diabetes self-management education (DSME) program with unstructured individualized nurse practitioner led DSME. METHODS: Demographic questions and the Self-Care Inventory-Revised (SCIR) were given to two convenience sample patient groups comprising a formal DSME program group and a group within a clinical setting who received informal and unstructured individual education during patient encounters. A t-test was executed between the formal ADA certified education sample and the informal sample's SCI-R individual scores. A second t-test was performed between the two samples' SCI-R mean scores. RESULTS: A t-test determined no statistically significant difference between the formal ADA structured education and informal education samples' SCI-R individual scores. There was not a statistically significant difference between the samples' SCI-R mean scores. DISCUSSION: The study results suggest that there are not superior DSME settings and instructional approaches.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/terapia , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/organização & administração , Autocuidado , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , PsicometriaRESUMO
The literature confirms that much confusion exists regarding the terms quality improvement (QI), evidence-based practice (EBP), and research. A multifaceted approach was used to provide clarity regarding these three equally important concepts. First, the authors present a synthesis of the literature that discusses differences between QI, EBP, and research. Second, the authors introduce a newly created comparative table that synthesizes current literature and showcases differences between QI, EBP, and research. Finally, the authors highlight uses of the comparative table within multiple settings.