Last updated September 9, 2026
Key finding
Experiences with EB-CPG-based care were predominantly positive.
This study explored the experiences of Ayurvedic practitioners and patients with EB-CPG-based care for managing T2DM in Nepal, revealing predominantly positive experiences.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Short-Term (≤3 mo)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study explored the experiences of Ayurvedic practitioners and patients with EB-CPG-based care for managing T2DM in Nepal, revealing predominantly positive experiences.
Understanding the experiences of patients and practitioners with EB-CPG-based care is crucial for improving diabetes management strategies. The positive feedback can encourage further integration of Ayurvedic practices in clinical settings, while addressing the challenges can enhance patient recruitment and trust in research.
Effectiveness of interventions remains unclear. Limited generalizability due to specific population characteristics. Potential biases in self-reported experiences.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Kaushik C, Nisha R, Shristi K, et al. Exploring the experiences and perspectives of Ayurvedic practitioners and patients regarding EB-CPG-based care for managing T2DM in Nepal. Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2026;17:20420188261417088. doi:10.1177/20420188261417088
Experiences with EB-CPG-based care were predominantly positive.
Challenges in usual clinical care indicated areas for improvement.
Facilitators for patient recruitment included trust in Ayurveda.
Patient hesitancy and mistrust of research were noted as challenges.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Integrated multidisciplinary diabetes and kidney care program, Usual clinical practice and Experiences with EB-CPG-based care, Renal Function Test parameters, Challenges in usual clinical care, and 1 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Integrated multidisciplinary diabetes and kidney care program
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
1
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
105
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence topic
matched_intervention
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Integrated multidisciplinary diabetes and kidney care program → Experiences with EB-CPG-based care
Integrated multidisciplinary diabetes and kidney care program → Experiences with EB-CPG-based care
Integrated multidisciplinary diabetes and kidney care program → Renal Function Test parameters
Integrated multidisciplinary diabetes and kidney care program → Renal Function Test parameters
Usual clinical practice → Challenges in usual clinical care
Usual clinical practice → Challenges in usual clinical care
Usual clinical practice → Patient hesitancy in trial participation
Usual clinical practice → Patient hesitancy in trial participation
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs and Experiences with EB-CPG-based care, Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs and Renal Function Test parameters.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies on Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs
Contributes to Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs evidence base.
All studies measuring Experiences with EB-CPG-based care
Measures Experiences with EB-CPG-based care as a key outcome.
All studies measuring Renal Function Test parameters
Measures Renal Function Test parameters as a key outcome.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Integrated multidisciplinary diabetes and kidney care program appears to improve experiences with eb-cpg-based care.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Experiences with EB-CPG-based care
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Integrated multidisciplinary diabetes and kidney care program appears to improve renal function test parameters.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Renal Function Test parameters
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Usual clinical practice for challenges in usual clinical care.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Challenges in usual clinical care
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Usual clinical practice for patient hesitancy in trial participation.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Patient hesitancy in trial participation
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
