Conversation Maps and Diabetes Education Groups: An Evaluation at an Australian Rural Health Service

Abstract

Objective. The rural Central Gippsland Health Service (CGHS) assists patients with diabetes through the provision of diabetes education. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the CGHS 5-week didactic program and a modified group-participatory Conversation Maps diabetes education program. Method. A pre- and post-program survey was conducted of clients who attended the two different diabetes education programs. The survey consisted of a self-constructed demographic questionnaire, the Diabetes Knowledge Test, the Diabetes Empowerment Scale, and the Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure. Results. For the CGHS program, there were no differences between pre- and post-program surveys in knowledge scores (11.05 ± 3.56 vs. 12.75 ± 4.19, P = 0.0883, n = 20), self-care activities (4.46 ± 1.11 vs. 4.83 ± 0.68, P = 0.0832, n = 12), or empowerment scores (7.16 ± 1.60 vs. 7.92 ± 1.26, P = 0.0540, n = 17). For the modified Conversation Maps program, there were significant improvements between pre- and post-program surveys in knowledge scores (12.42 ± 4.15 vs. 15.54 ± 3.79, P = 0.0004, n = 26), self-care activities (4.74 ± 1.09 vs. 5.32 ± 0.80, P = 0.0139, n = 24), and empowerment scores (6.56 ± 2.19 vs. 8.11 ± 1.46, P = 0.0016, n = 21). The greatest difference between the two programs was observed in knowledge gain (P = 0.0178). Overall, participants were satisfied with both programs, with no difference seen in satisfaction levels (P = 0.9763). A1C results improved in both programs to a mean of 6.7% (P = 0.0071 for CGHS and P = 0.0092 for Conversation Maps). Conclusion. The modified Conversation Maps program resulted in significant improvements for rural participants.

FIGURE 1.

Pre- and post-program survey results for the CGHS 5-week and Conversation Maps programs.

FIGURE 2.

A1C levels compared for participants in the two diabetes education programs.