Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb;29(1):32-6.
doi: 10.2337/diaspect.29.1.32.

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

Sue Kewming  1 , Angelo D'Amore  2 , Eleanor K L Mitchell  2
Affiliations

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

Sue Kewming et al. Diabetes Spectr. 2016 Feb.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Pre- and post-program survey results for the CGHS 5-week and Conversation Maps programs.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
A1C levels compared for participants in the two diabetes education programs.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. International Diabetes Federation IDF Diabetes Atlas, 2012. Available from http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas/5e/the-global-burden. Accessed 25 August 2013.
    1. Magliano DJ, Peeters A, Vos T, et al. . Projecting the burden of diabetes in Australia: what is the size of the matter? Aust N Z J Public Health 2009;33:540–543 - PubMed
    1. Diabetes Australia Australian Diabetes Map. Geospatial Map Australia, 2011. Available from http://www.ndss.com.au. Accessed 17 January 2014
    1. Overland J, Yue DK, Mira M. Use of Medicare services related to diabetes care: the impact of rural isolation. Aust J Rural Health 2001;9:311–316 - PubMed
    1. Phillips A. Health Status differentials across rural and remote Australia. Aust J Rural Health 2009;17:2–9 - PubMed