Promoting self-efficacy in patients with chronic disease beyond traditional education: A literature review.
Holly Farley
PMID 31871689WHAT IT FOUND
Traditional education alone often leaves chronic disease patients without confidence to manage care.
This review found health literacy, access and support block self-efficacy; self-management programmes, telehealth, apps, gaming and social media may help, but evidence is limited.
Key findings
01The review identified three barriers to self-efficacy: health literacy, access and support.
02The review identified five non-traditional strategies: self-management programmes, telehealth, mobile applications, gaming and social media.
03Evidence for newer strategies was limited: two articles on mobile applications, one on gaming and two studies on social media.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat 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.
What it does not show
This is a review of other studies, not a direct test of one intervention on patients. Only 24 studies were included, and many were qualitative or reviews. Only peer-reviewed English articles from January 2014 to January 2018 were searched. The authors noted limited research on mobile applications, gaming and social media. The authors noted that studies came from several countries and access or standard of care may differ. The authors noted their theme interpretation could be subjective because many sources were qualitative or reviews. One included study had participants as young as 15, although the review targeted adults.
Declared interests
The authors state there is no conflict of interest to declare.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that mobile apps, gaming or social media improve self-efficacy for all chronic disease patients. The review found only two articles on mobile applications, one on gaming and two studies on social media, and many included papers were qualitative or reviews.