However , overall there did not appear to be a significant difference between individual education and usual care .
In the small number of studies comparing group and individual education , there was an equal impact on HbA1c at 12 to 18 months .
BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes is a common and costly chronic disease which is associated with significant premature mortality and morbidity .
Although patient education is an integral component of diabetes care , there remain uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of different methods and modes of education .
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of individual patient education  on metabolic control , diabetes knowledge and psychosocial outcomes .
Proactive case management of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by a clinical pharmacist: a randomized controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of case management by a clinical pharmacist on glycemic control and preventive measures in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus . STUDY DESIGN R and omized controlled trial in a university-affiliated primary care internal medicine clinic . METHODS We recruited 80 patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus . A clinical pharmacist provided evaluation and modification of pharmacotherapy , self-management diabetes education , and reinforcement of diabetes complications screening processes through clinic visits and telephone follow-up . The main clinical outcome was hemoglobin A1C ( HbA1C ) level ; process measures included HbA1C and low-density lipoprotein measurement , retinal examination , urine microalbumin testing ( or use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors ) , and monofilament screening for diabetic neuropathy . RESULTS Patients in the intervention and control groups were similar in age , sex , mean HbA1C levels ( 10.1 % and 10.2 % , respectively ; P = .65 ) , and current treatment regimens at baseline . Patients who received case management by the clinical pharmacist achieved greater reduction in HbA1C levels than those in the control group ( 2.1 % vs 0.9 % , P = .03 ) . Three of the 5 process measures were conducted more frequently in the intervention group than the control group , including low-density lipoprotein measurement ( 100.0 % vs 85.7 % , P = .02 ) , retinal examination ( 97.3 % vs 74.3 % ) , and monofilament foot screening ( 92.3 % vs 62.9 % ) . CONCLUSIONS Proactive diabetes case management by a pharmacist substantially improved glycemic control and diabetes process-of-care measures . This approach , integrated with and based in the primary care setting , was an effective and efficient approach to improving care , especially for those with poor glycemic control at baseline
However , overall there did not appear to be a significant difference between individual education and usual care .
In the small number of studies comparing group and individual education , there was an equal impact on HbA1c at 12 to 18 months .
BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes is a common and costly chronic disease which is associated with significant premature mortality and morbidity .
Although patient education is an integral component of diabetes care , there remain uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of different methods and modes of education .
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of individual patient education  on metabolic control , diabetes knowledge and psychosocial outcomes .