Publication date

COMPAR-EU recommendations on self-management interventions in Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Beltran, J., Valli, C., Media-Aedo, M., Canelo-Aybar, C., Niño de Guzmán, E., Song, Y., Orrego, C., Ballester, M., Suñol, R., Noordman, J., Heijmans, M., Seitidis, G., Tsokani, S., Kontouli, K.M., Christogiannis, C., Mavridis, D., Graaf, G. de, Groene, O., Grammatikpoulou, M.G., Camalleres-Guillem, F., Perestelo-Perez, L., McGloin, H., Winkley, K., Mueller, B.S., Saz-Parkinson, Z., Corcoy, R., Alonso-Coello, P. COMPAR-EU recommendations on self-management interventions in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Healthcare: 2024, 12(4), p. Art. nr. 483.
Read online
Self-management interventions (SMIs) offer a promising approach to actively engage patients in the management of their chronic diseases. Within the scope of the COMPAR-EU project, our goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the utilisation and implementation of SMIs in the care of adult individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

A multidisciplinary panel of experts, utilising a core outcome set (COS), identified critical outcomes and established effect thresholds for each outcome. The panel formulated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, a transparent and rigorous framework for developing and presenting the best available evidence for the formulation of recommendations. All recommendations are based on systematic reviews (SR) of the effects and of values and preferences, a contextual analysis, and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

The COMPAR-EU panel is in favour of using SMIs rather than usual care (UC) alone (conditional, very low certainty of the evidence). Furthermore, the panel specifically is in favour of using ten selected SMIs, rather than UC alone (conditional, low certainty of the evidence), mostly encompassing education, self-monitoring, and behavioural techniques. The panel acknowledges that, for most SMIs, moderate resource requirements exist, and cost-effectiveness analyses do not distinctly favour either the SMI or UC. Additionally, it recognises that SMIs are likely to enhance equity, deeming them acceptable and feasible for implementation.