RNMeta-AnalysisInternational journal of nursing sciences2020

Comparative efficacy of social media delivered health education on glycemic control: A meta-analysis.

Caifang Chen, Ling Wang, Han-Lin Chi and 2 others

PMID 32817860

WHAT IT FOUND

Using WeChat or QQ group education instead of or alongside usual diabetes education was associated with lower blood sugar measures than usual education alone in Chinese people with diabetes or uncontrolled blood glucose at follow-ups up to 12 months.

Key findings

01Pooled estimates favoured group chat education, with Hedges’ g = −0.81 for HbA1c, −1.11 for fasting glucose, and −0.98 for 2-hour postprandial glucose.

02The meta-analysis pooled 25 randomized trials and 2837 participants, with 1419 in intervention groups and 1418 in control groups.

03The 6 to 12 month postprandial glucose estimate had a wide confidence interval and rested on two studies.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The included trials were generally low quality for concealment of allocation and blinding of outcome assessors. Many trials did not report how intervention and control conditions were made comparable, so extra contact with clinicians could explain the benefit. Publication bias was suggested for HbA1c. The longest postprandial glucose follow-up estimate rested on very few studies. The evidence comes from Chinese settings using WeChat or QQ, so it may not transfer to other apps, languages, or health systems. Some trials used self-reported glucose outcomes rather than venous blood tests.

Declared interests

No conflict of interest was declared. An author received support from the National Institute of Nursing Research.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that WeChat or QQ alone improved glucose control. Most trials added chat education to usual care, and the intervention groups probably had more frequent contact with clinicians, so extra attention rather than the chat medium may explain the benefit.

Read it on PubMed →