Evidence Hub

The Effect of Self-Management on Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yan-Fang Huang, Sijia Li, Xiu-qiong Lu, Weiqiang Chen, Yun Zhang

Healthcare, 2024

7,603 participants · 107 citations

Abstract

Background: Chronic diseases significantly impact global morbidity and mortality, affecting millions. Self-management interventions are crucial for improving patient health outcomes. This study explores the effects of self-management interventions on the quality of life (QOL), self-efficacy, depression, and anxiety of patients with chronic diseases. Methods: Relevant studies were searched from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, evaluated the risk of bias assessment, and extracted characteristics and outcomes among patients with chronic diseases. For each included study, we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the main outcomes. When deemed feasible, the heterogeneity of the study was explored by meta-analysis and subgroup analysis. Results: Thirty-four studies involving a total of 7603 patients with chronic diseases were included. Self-management interventions significantly improved quality of life (Higher-better QOL and Lower-better QOL), self-efficacy, and reduced depression symptoms compared to usual care (95%CI 0.01 to 0.15, p = 0.03; 95%CI −0.49 to −0.08, p = 0.006; 95%CI 0.19 to 0.62, p < 0.001; 95%CI −0.23 to −0.07, p < 0.001). However, no significant effect was found for anxiety (95%CI −0.18 to 0.03, p = 0.18). In the heterogeneity analysis, Lower-better QOL and self-efficacy were all higher than 50% (I2 = 80%, 87%). After the subgroup analysis, the heterogeneity of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,603 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free