Implementing empowerment group education in diabetes
Introduction
Patient education has long been an important part of the treatment of diabetic patients. In the 1980s it was considered that traditional education did not correspond to the needs of patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes [1]. During this decade the need to improve diabetes care and education was highlighted to meet targets for “Healthy People 2000” [2].
In traditional education, providers acted as experts who gave advice and recommendations they expected that patients required in their self-management [3]. Discussions concerned how the providers’ attitudes and behaviours could affect patients’ acceptance and attitude to their disease [4]. Patients wanted to be listened to, be given opportunities to explain their problems and get information that was suitable in their daily life. They also wanted to be supported and trusted as responsible human beings [3]. A change in the providers’ role was needed, from being controllers to becoming helpers or enablers [4].
In the 1990s empowerment was introduced as an approach in patient education [5], [6], [7]. At the individual level, empowerment is defined as a process where people gain mastery and take control of their own lives [8], [9]. The empowerment approach implies other roles than the traditional. The providers’ tasks are to enable patients to express their feelings, explore problems and to develop solutions to their problems. The providers’ enable patients to make informed choices and to discover their own capacity to take control and responsibility for their diabetes and its management. Patients select their learning needs, as well as identifying problems, strengths and barriers to making behavioural changes and setting their goals. A plan to reach these goals is established with the assistance of the providers [5]. This approach requires a change in the health care system to a culture where the patients are treated as experts in living with diabetes and the providers act as facilitators [10], [11].
Studies in behavioural change strategy [12], empowerment [6] and patient-centred approach [13], [14] have shown barriers to providers’ ability to change behaviour and apply a new approach. Implementation barriers included providers’ ability to respond to emotional issues and to allow patients to solve their own problems [6], lack of competence in method [12] and choosing not to use the method [15] or some parts of the method [16]. Other barriers were time constraints [12], [16] and the predominance of other clinical issues [12]. These studies showed that it is necessary to go further and highlight providers’ ability to apply the new approach in order to increase the understanding of how to implement this approach in patient education.
The overall aim of this study was to gain insight into and understanding of the physicians’ and nurses’ view of implementing empowerment group education (EGE) in diabetes and to explore opportunities and barriers for its implementation.
Section snippets
Methods
The study design was approved by the research ethics committee at Uppsala University.
Results
A central theme in the focus group discussions was the conflicting roles that might occur when introducing the empowerment approach and implementing the approach in group education. These conflicts can be seen as tensions between two different roles—the traditional role as a physician or a nurse in individual counselling and the role the empowerment approach required in the group education. These conflicts will be presented more in detail.
Discussion and conclusion
Considering the conflict between the traditional and empowerment approaches it was not easy for the physicians and nurses to implement the empowerment approach. As facilitators they should give the patients knowledge when required, as well as help and support in their change process and goal-setting. At the same time they needed support and feedback in their own educational process. This can be compared to the patients’ and their need for feedback about their changing habits [3], [19]. It might
Acknowledgements
First, we wish to thank the physicians and nurses from the family practices who gave us their time. Special thanks to Dr Peter Tilly and the Director of Primary Care in the county council of Västmanland, Christina Hjulström, for supporting the study; Dr Åke Tenerz, Västerås for his co-operation in the interview questions; and Professor Bengt Starrin, Karlstad University, for sharing his valuable knowledge about qualitative research.
References (23)
Rethinking the models and modes of diabetes education
Patient. Edu. Couns.
(1990)- et al.
Management of type II diabetes: a challenge for patient and physician
Patient Edu. Couns.
(2000) - et al.
Change counselling in diabetes: the development of a training programme for the diabetes team
Patient. Edu. Couns.
(2000) - et al.
Developing a training programme in patient-centred consulting for evaluation in a randomised controlled trial diabetes care from diagnosis in British primary care
Patient Edu. Couns.
(1996) - et al.
Professional responses to innovation in clinical method: diabetes care and negotiating skills
Patient Educ. Couns.
(1996) - et al.
Diabetes care from diagnosis: effects of training in patient-centred care on beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of primary care professionals
Patient Educ. Couns.
(1999) - et al.
Community diabetes care: A 10-year perspective
Diabetes Care
(1994) Patient perspectives of diabetes care and education
J. Adv. Nurs.
(1991)- et al.
Influencing the personal meaning of diabetes: research and practice
Diabetes Edu.
(1988) - et al.
Empowerment: an idea whose time has come in diabetes education
Diabetes Edu.
(1991)
Learning to empower patients: results of professional education program for diabetes educators
Diabetes Care
Cited by (64)
Training interventions for healthcare providers offering group-based patient education. A scoping review
2021, Patient Education and CounselingCitation Excerpt :Characteristics of each study are presented in Table 1. Among those using qualitative methods, 11 applied interviews [29,30,32–34,46,48,50–52,54], three had focus groups [28,37,49], one combined individual interviews and focus groups [31], one used focus groups and panel discussions [36] and one included a workshop [35] and two included written responses [32,47]. Seven included qualitative data from observations of PE following training [29,32,35,46,50–52].
Multidisciplinary team approach to diabetes. An outlook on providers’ and patients’ perspectives
2020, Primary Care DiabetesCitation Excerpt :Three studies interviewed physicians after they had gone through team training sessions [15,17,21], and two studied teams that were based in rural areas [16,20]. Most examined MDTs that were established and worked in city areas [15,17–19, 21–29]. Three themes were common across the various articles; interactions between HCPs, benefits to patient and constraints and facilitators of the healthcare system.
Resource allocation and organisational features in Swedish primary diabetes care: Changes from 2006 to 2013
2017, Primary Care DiabetesNurse-led patient-centered self-management support improves HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes—A randomized study
2016, Patient Education and CounselingEvaluating the effectiveness of a family empowerment program on family function and pulmonary function of children with asthma: A randomized control trial
2016, International Journal of Nursing Studies