NoneNo Change
BMI
DSMES → BMI
DSMES → BMI
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeWeight & Anthropometrics
Unlock full evidence details
Research Summary
Scalable diabetes education improves care coordination
Key finding
Mean difference at 12-month; -0.1% (-0.4 to 0.1) for nurse-led.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of scalable diabetes self-management education and support models in adults with Type 2 Diabetes. Results showed no significant changes in key health outcomes.
Evidence strength
Moderate confidence
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Long-Term (1–5 y)
Some Concerns bias
Last updated July 8, 2026Quick read
Study at a glance
The essential study design details in one scan.
Population
Young Adult (19–39), Middle Aged (40-64), Male, Female, Asia-Pacific (APAC), with T2 Diabetes
Intervention
Nurse-led DSMES delivery service
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Long-Term (1–5 y)
Primary outcome
HbA1c
Comparator
Routine Care
Plain-language summary
What this paper says
A plain-language read of the study's main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the effectiveness of scalable diabetes self-management education and support models in adults with Type 2 Diabetes. Results showed no significant changes in key health outcomes.
Clinical relevance
Understanding the effectiveness of diabetes self-management education is crucial for developing effective interventions. This study highlights the challenges in achieving significant health improvements through scalable education models, which can inform future program designs and resource allocation.
Keep in mind
The study did not demonstrate significant effectiveness of the interventions. Sample size and participant characteristics may limit generalizability. Outcomes measured may not capture all aspects of diabetes management.
Published in
Journal Reference
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Piyachon A, Iliatha PN, Poppy ACM, et al. Effectiveness of Scalable Models of Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes. The Lancet Regional Health - Southeast Asia. 2026;49:100778. doi:10.1016/j.lansea.2026.100778
Save this study and add notes to your research library.
Main Effects
Nurse-led intervention showed a mean HbA1c difference of -0.1% (p=0.45), indicating no significant change.
Peer-assisted intervention showed a mean HbA1c difference of 0.1% (p=0.85), indicating no significant change.
No significant differences were found in BMI, waist circumference, or other metabolic markers.
Evidence network
How this study fits
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
Evidence Context
This study contributes evidence to DSMES and BMI, Diastolic blood pressure, Difference in Thai-CV risk score at 12 months compared to routine care, and 8 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
DSMES
Primary outcomes
- BMI
- Diastolic blood pressure
- Difference in Thai-CV risk score at 12 months compared to routine care
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Evidence relationships
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
11
Evidence pairs
11
Relationships
4
Evidence topics
contributes_evidence
Editorial context
Why this study matters
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.
Moderate contributionModerate confidenceNetwork score: 72
4
Related topics
11
Evidence pairs
401
Related studies
High relevance in at least one topic
Why it is useful
- Contributes to 11 evidence relationships
- Includes primary outcome data
- Linked to 4 direct semantic evidence topics
Topic contributions
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Core evidence
Study findings
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
NoneNo Change
Diastolic blood pressure
DSMES → Diastolic blood pressure
DSMES → Diastolic blood pressure
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeMetabolic Health
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
Difference in Thai-CV risk score at 12 months compared to routine care
DSMES → Difference in Thai-CV risk score at 12 months compared to routine care
DSMES → Difference in Thai-CV risk score at 12 months compared to routine care
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeClinical Outcomes
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
Fasting blood sugar (FBS)
DSMES → Fasting blood sugar (FBS)
DSMES → Fasting blood sugar (FBS)
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeGlycemic Control
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
HbA1c
DSMES → HbA1c
DSMES → HbA1c
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeGlycemic Control
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
HDL cholesterol
DSMES → HDL cholesterol
DSMES → HDL cholesterol
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeMetabolic Health
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
LDL cholesterol
DSMES → LDL cholesterol
DSMES → LDL cholesterol
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeMetabolic Health
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
Systolic blood pressure
DSMES → Systolic blood pressure
DSMES → Systolic blood pressure
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeMetabolic Health
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
Total cholesterol
DSMES → Total cholesterol
DSMES → Total cholesterol
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeMetabolic Health
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
Triglycerides
DSMES → Triglycerides
DSMES → Triglycerides
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeMetabolic Health
Unlock full evidence details
NoneNo Change
Waist circumference
DSMES → Waist circumference
DSMES → Waist circumference
Evidence profile
NoneNo ChangeWeight & Anthropometrics
Unlock full evidence details
Unlock full evidence analysis
Create a free account to access effectiveness ratings, evidence strength and depth scores, consistency analysis, and direct links to all supporting studies.
Evidence Suggest
- Nurse-led intervention resulted in a -0.1% change in HbA1c, not statistically significant.
- Peer-assisted intervention showed a 0.1% change in HbA1c, also not statistically significant.
- No significant differences in metabolic markers like BMI and cholesterol levels.
Who this applies to
- Adults diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes.
- Participants seeking scalable diabetes education and support.
Keep in Mind
- Results may not apply to populations outside the study sample.
- Interventions did not show clinically meaningful changes in health outcomes.
- Future studies may need to explore different approaches or larger sample sizes.
Between the Lines
- The study did not demonstrate significant effectiveness of the interventions.
- Sample size and participant characteristics may limit generalizability.
- Outcomes measured may not capture all aspects of diabetes management.
Unlock Full Analysis
Create a free account to unlock the bias score, detailed effectiveness analysis, and clinical outcomes for this study.
Already have an account?
Connected Evidence
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
This study contributes to evidence on Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs and HbA1c.
Related evidence relationships
Explore in Evidence ArchiveThis study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) ProgramsHbA1c
Behavioral & Lifestyle
4 studies
Detailed evidenceIncluded in these evidence collections
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs Evidence Hub
All studies on Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs
4 studies
intervention_hubContributes to Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs evidence base.
HbA1c Evidence Hub
All studies measuring HbA1c
4 studies
outcome_hubMeasures HbA1c as a key outcome.
Recent Diabetes Research
Latest published studies
recency_collection
Published within the last 2 years.
Explore more in the evidence archive
Jump to pre-filtered views in the evidence archive.
Questions answered by this study
Does Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs improve HbA1c?
Emerging Evidence
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs may improve HbA1c.
ConsensusScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 53.5 | moderate positive | ConsensusScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 24 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
- Population details are unavailable.
Does Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs improve body composition?
Emerging Evidence
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs appears to improve Body Composition.
ConsensusScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
Waist circumference
EvidenceScore™ Limited | EvidenceScore™ 38.1 | neutral | ConsensusScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 4 supporting studies and existing graph evidence signals.
Limitations
- Consistency cannot yet be determined.
- Population details are unavailable.
Does Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs improve fasting glucose?
Emerging Evidence
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs appears to improve Fasting Glucose.
ConsensusScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
Fasting blood sugar (FBS)
EvidenceScore™ Limited | EvidenceScore™ 38.1 | neutral | ConsensusScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 7 supporting studies and existing graph evidence signals.
Limitations
- Consistency cannot yet be determined.
- Population details are unavailable.
Does Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs improve adipokine and angiogenic markers?
Emerging Evidence
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs appears to improve Adipokine and Angiogenic Markers.
ConsensusScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
HDL cholesterol
EvidenceScore™ Limited | EvidenceScore™ 38.1 | neutral | ConsensusScore™ Unclear | 1 study
- 2
LDL cholesterol
EvidenceScore™ Limited | EvidenceScore™ 38.1 | neutral | ConsensusScore™ Unclear | 1 study
- 3
Total cholesterol
EvidenceScore™ Limited | EvidenceScore™ 38.1 | neutral | ConsensusScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 7 supporting studies and existing graph evidence signals.
Limitations
- Consistency cannot yet be determined.
- Population details are unavailable.
Next steps
Continue your research
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, archive views, and research summaries.
Evidence topics
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Explore in archive
Open broader archive views for this relationship.
Related research
Read related research summaries.
Mediterranean ketogenic eating matched VLCKD for weight loss over 3 monthsNatural products may improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetesSmartphone app shows little effect on physical activity in type 2 diabetesDigital-Driven Model Improves Diabetes Management in Underresourced AreasMobile health support improves blood glucose levels in type 2 diabetes
No ads. No tracking.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Secure & private
Your data is always protected.
Always up to date
New studies added every day.