Research ers noted small improvements in body mass index immediately after the intervention was provided and at six months , along with improved weight post intervention .
Diabetes knowledge and self efficacy improved immediately following receipt of the intervention , and knowledge also at six months .
The intervention did not improve blood pressure .
Evidence is insufficient to show whether type 2 diabetes self management interventions for people with severe mental illness are effective in improving outcomes .
BACKGROUND People with severe mental illness are twice as likely to develop type 2 diabetes as those without severe mental illness .
Treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes recommend that structured education should be integrated into routine care and should be offered to all .
However , for people with severe mental illness , physical health may be a low priority , and motivation to change may be limited .
These additional challenges mean that the findings reported in previous systematic review s of diabetes self management interventions may not be generalised to those with severe mental illness , and that tailored approaches to effective diabetes education may be required for this population .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of diabetes self management interventions specifically tailored for people with type 2 diabetes and severe mental illness .
The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews
Objective To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias — the selection for publication of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results — and its impact on Cochrane review s. Design A nine point classification system for missing outcome data in r and omised trials was developed and applied to the trials assessed in a large , unselected cohort of Cochrane systematic review s. Research ers who conducted the trials were contacted and the reason sought for the non-reporting of data . A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of outcome reporting bias on review s that included a single meta- analysis of the review primary outcome . Results More than half ( 157/283 ( 55 % ) ) the review s did not include full data for the review primary outcome of interest from all eligible trials . The median amount of review outcome data missing for any reason was 10 % , whereas 50 % or more of the potential data were missing in 70 ( 25 % ) review s. It was clear from the publications for 155 ( 6 % ) of the 2486 assessable trials that the research ers had measured and analysed the review primary outcome but did not report or only partially reported the results . For reports that did not mention the review primary outcome , our classification regarding the presence of outcome reporting bias was shown to have a sensitivity of 88 % ( 95 % CI 65 % to 100 % ) and specificity of 80 % ( 95 % CI 69 % to 90 % ) on the basis of responses from 62 trialists . A third of Cochrane review s ( 96/283 ( 34 % ) ) contained at least one trial with high suspicion of outcome reporting bias for the review primary outcome . In a sensitivity analysis undertaken for 81 review s with a single meta- analysis of the primary outcome of interest , the treatment effect estimate was reduced by 20 % or more in 19 ( 23 % ) . Of the 42 meta-analyses with a statistically significant result only , eight ( 19 % ) became non-significant after adjustment for outcome reporting bias and 11 ( 26 % ) would have overestimated the treatment effect by 20 % or more . Conclusions Outcome reporting bias is an under-recognised problem that affects the conclusions in a substantial proportion of Cochrane review s. Individuals conducting systematic review s need to address explicitly the issue of missing outcome data for their review to be considered a reliable source of evidence . Extra care is required during data extraction , review ers should identify when a trial reports that an outcome was measured but no results were reported or events observed , and contact with trialists should be encouraged
Research ers noted small improvements in body mass index immediately after the intervention was provided and at six months , along with improved weight post intervention .
Diabetes knowledge and self efficacy improved immediately following receipt of the intervention , and knowledge also at six months .
The intervention did not improve blood pressure .
Evidence is insufficient to show whether type 2 diabetes self management interventions for people with severe mental illness are effective in improving outcomes .
BACKGROUND People with severe mental illness are twice as likely to develop type 2 diabetes as those without severe mental illness .
Treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes recommend that structured education should be integrated into routine care and should be offered to all .
However , for people with severe mental illness , physical health may be a low priority , and motivation to change may be limited .
These additional challenges mean that the findings reported in previous systematic review s of diabetes self management interventions may not be generalised to those with severe mental illness , and that tailored approaches to effective diabetes education may be required for this population .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of diabetes self management interventions specifically tailored for people with type 2 diabetes and severe mental illness .