Group Versus Individual Diabetes Education for Persons With Experience of Homelessness in Canada

1Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore various forms of diabetes self-management education (DSME), including group and individual sessions, for persons with lived experiences of homelessness (PWLEH) in Canada. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study using open-ended interviews with health care and homeless sector service providers was utilized to serve those experiencing homelessness in 5 cities across Canada. NVivo qualitative data analysis software was used to facilitate thematic analysis, focusing on variations in DSME for PWLEH. Results: We conducted interviews with 96 unique health and social care providers. Four themes were identified through focused coding of interviews. First, the use of a harm reduction approach during diabetes education tailored to PWLEH considered patients’ access to food, medications, and supplies and other comorbidities, including mental health and substance use disorders. The second theme related to the unsuitability of the curriculum in mainstream diabetes education in a group setting for PWLEH. Third, the role of group education in community building is to create supportive relationships among members. The final theme was the importance of trust and confidentiality in DSME, which were most easily maintained during individual education, compared to group formats. Conclusions: Overall, PWLEH experience unique challenges in managing diabetes. DSME adapted to these individuals’ unique needs may be more successful and could be delivered in both individual and group settings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McSweeney, B., Campbell, R. B., Grewal, E. K., Gu, J., & Campbell, D. J. T. (2023). Group Versus Individual Diabetes Education for Persons With Experience of Homelessness in Canada. Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care, 49(6), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/26350106231201365

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free