Abstract
Background:
The increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus has become a global public health challenge in recent decades. However, disease-related complications can be minimized through innovative educational programs.Objectives:
This study aimed to compare the effects of healthy lifestyle education delivered via peer group and the mHealth app on self-esteem in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Methods:
This three-group randomized controlled trial was conducted in 2022. A total of 135 patients living with T2DM were recruited using purposive sampling from two hospitals in Kermanshah Province, Iran, and then divided into three groups: Peer education, virtual education, and control groups, via replacement randomization. Peer patients with T2DM, previously trained by the researchers, provided education to those in the peer education group in four 35-minute sessions over two days. Simultaneously, patients in the virtual education group were trained by the researchers using the mHealth app, specifically designed for this purpose, in three 1-hour sessions over three days. Data were collected using the Patient Profile Form and the self-reported Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, employing paired-sample t-tests, chi-square tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for comparisons.Results:
Before the intervention, there were no significant differences in the self-esteem mean scores between the study groups (P = 0.665). However, post-intervention, the self-esteem scores differed significantly between all groups (P = 0.002). The self-esteem mean scores of patients in the peer education group (100.36 ± 15.9 vs. 106.87 ± 9.08, P = 0.011) and the virtual education group (100.80 ± 24.72 vs. 116.91 ± 10.67, P = 0.018) significantly increased after the intervention, while no significant difference was observed in the control group (106.87 ± 9.08 vs. 105.60 ± 10.84, P = 0.134). Virtual education via the mHealth app was more effective than peer education in improving self-esteem in patients with T2DM.Conclusions:
The healthy lifestyle education program delivered through virtual education via the mHealth mobile app led to higher self-esteem among patients with T2DM compared to peer education. It is suggested that future studies investigate the impact of virtual education using mobile-based apps and artificial intelligence capabilities on self-esteem in other patient populations. These results can serve as guidelines for the optimal use of distance education and educational apps for patients with chronic diseases.Keywords
Diabetes Mellitus Healthy Lifestyle Health Promotion Mobile Applications Self-concept
1. Background
The escalating prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has become one of the top global public health challenges of the 21st century (1). The number of people living with DM is estimated to double, from 529 million in 2021 to approximately 1.3 billion by 2050 (2). As reported by the Iranian National Institute of Health Research (INIHR) in 2021, the prevalence of this condition in adults over 18 years old in Iran is projected at 14.15%, representing a 45.5% increase compared to 2016 (3). Diabetes mellitus patients are prone to multiple complications, including retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, and cardiovascular diseases, which need to be minimized over time (4).
Health behavior theories often emphasize raising public knowledge as a key element in changing health-related behavior and achieving better outcomes (5, 6). Consequently, healthy lifestyle education (HLSE) programs aim to help DM patients acquire knowledge, skills, and empowerment for self-care (7). One accessible approach is peer education, where trained DM patients support others with the same condition in managing their disease (8). A systematic review by Madmoli et al. demonstrated the significant impact of peer education on improved self-care in DM patients (9).
Another cost-effective, comprehensive strategy for chronic patient education is utilizing virtual education methods via mobile-based apps (10, 11). Virtual education refers to a learning environment where teachers and learners are connected at different times and locations, and sometimes simultaneously. Educational materials are delivered through information technology apps, multimedia resources, the Internet, and video conferences (12, 13). This creates an excellent opportunity for teaching and learning beyond geographical boundaries, eliminating the need to physically attend classroom sessions (14, 15). Recently, mobile apps have been widely used in both developed and developing countries due to their potential to provide personalized medical recommendations (16). According to figures published by BankMyCell on January 9, 2024, 85.74% of people worldwide use mobile devices. This indicates that mobile devices are an ideal platform for virtual education (17, 18), as mobile-based apps offer patients continuously updated and accessible educational content (19).
Research has shown that individuals with higher levels of self-esteem tend to engage in better self-care, achieve a higher quality of life (20, 21), and experience more success in modifying lifestyle factors such as nutrition, physical activity, and stress management (22-24). Self-esteem reflects one's ability to adapt to life's challenges and find happiness in achieving effectiveness (25). It also involves positive or negative self-evaluation or the extent to which individuals perceive themselves as worthy. This can develop in relation to others or independently (26, 27). Chronic stress associated with long-term health conditions can significantly reduce patients' self-esteem (28). Previous studies have reported varying results regarding the effects of education delivered through peer groups and the mHealth app (29, 30).
A review of credible databases revealed no study comparing the effects of two comprehensive educational methods—peer education and virtual education via mobile apps—on patients with DM. Therefore, exploring the impact of HLSE through these two approaches on patients' self-esteem represents an innovation in the present study.
2. Objectives
This research compared the effects of HLSE using peer education and virtual education via interactive virtual sessions and the mobile-based mHealth app on self-esteem in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
3. Methods
3.1. Study Design
This three-group randomized controlled trial was completed in 2022 and registered on October 6, 2021, on the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (No. IRCT20210808052115N1).
3.2. Participants and Study Setting
Based on a comparable study's (31) mean and standard deviation values, a 95% confidence interval, and 90% test power, the sample size was calculated to be 41 participants per group. To account for a 10% attrition rate, 45 patients with T2DM were examined in each group, calculated as follows:
This study was conducted from July to December 2022 at two selected hospitals in Kermanshah Province, Iran. A total of 168 patients with T2DM were recruited using purposive sampling. Of these, 20 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria, and five individuals declined to participate in the study. Out of the remaining 143 patients, 48 were placed in the peer education group, 48 were assigned to the virtual education group (using interactive virtual sessions via a mobile-based app, mHealth), and 47 were selected for the control group.
During the study, one patient from the virtual education group dropped out due to a technical problem with their mobile device, one was removed due to surgery, and another was excluded for missing the virtual education sessions. In the peer education group, one patient was excluded due to hospitalization, and two others were removed for not attending the educational sessions. In the control group, two patients were excluded following hospitalization. Ultimately, data from 45 patients in each study group were analyzed (Figure 1).
The CONSORT diagram
Replacement randomization was employed to assign patients to the study groups, ensuring that each patient had an equal probability of being included in one of the three groups. A randomized block design was used, with six patients randomly assigned to each block. The groups were labeled A, B, and C. Each block of six patients was formed by randomly assigning them to the groups. For example, in the first week, if the block sequence was ABCCAB, patients were placed into the groups accordingly. In the first week, patients were assigned to group C, group A, and so on. During the second week, patients were assigned to the peer education group B, and in the third week, they were included in the virtual education group C. This blocking process continued until the required sample size was reached.
The inclusion criteria were as follows: The patient's willingness to participate in the study, a diagnosis of uncontrolled T2DM (fasting blood sugar levels above 126 mg/dL) (32) for at least six months prior to the study, being between the ages of 21 and 75 (33), literacy and proficiency in the Persian language, access to a mobile device and the internet (with the ability to use them and install apps), the ability to make direct phone calls with the patient or their family members, absence of cognitive impairments or physical disabilities, no need for diabetic foot surgery, and no hearing or vision problems. Additionally, patients could not have a background in medical education or recent participation in educational programs for DM management within the past six months.
The exclusion criteria included physical disabilities that hindered self-care, reluctance to continue the study, and not using the specified app.
3.3. Data Collection
The data were collected using the Patient Profile Form, which included information about age, gender, educational attainment, income, head of family, caregiver, presence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, kidney diseases, unhealed wounds, and a history of DM in first-degree relatives. The Self-Report Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) was used to assess patients’ self-esteem. The RSES was completed by the patients before and two months after the intervention program.
The RSES, designed by Rosenberg in 1965, is one of the most commonly used tools to measure overall self-esteem (34). This 10-item questionnaire consists of five positive and five negative statements, rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from completely disagree (0) to completely agree (3). The total scores range from 0 to 30. Positive statements include items 1 to 5, while negative statements include items 6 to 10. The scores are categorized into three levels of self-esteem: Low (below 17), moderate (17 - 21), and high (above 21) (35).
The internal consistency of the RSES has been widely validated in studies worldwide, with a reported coefficient of 0.84, and its test-retest reliability within two weeks was also 0.84. In domestic studies, the reliability values of the RSES, measured using Cronbach’s alpha, test-retest, and split-half reliability coefficients, were reported as 0.69, 0.78, and 0.68, respectively (34). In Rajabi et al.’s (as cited by Kariminejad) study of the Iranian population, the internal consistency coefficient was reported to be 0.84 (36). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale in the present study was 0.78.
3.4. Intervention Program
Three patients with T2DM were initially selected from the list provided by both hospitals in Kermanshah Province, Iran. These patients did not have chronic complications of DM, such as kidney failure, blindness or acute vision loss, diabetic foot ulcers, or amputations. Their glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were also within the normal range. The researchers trained these peer educators in person for two hours using the lecture method. The educational materials were prepared according to the patients' needs, and peers received small gifts as tokens of appreciation after completing the educational sessions.
Initially, all patients in the study groups completed the patient profile form and the RSES. The patients in the peer education group were then divided into three subgroups of 15. The researchers contacted them by phone to invite them to attend the educational sessions. Each subgroup participated in four 35-minute face-to-face sessions over two days, led by their peer educators under the supervision of the researchers. During these sessions, the peers shared their experiences, teaching participants how to increase self-esteem and manage their diabetes more effectively.
For the patients in the virtual education group, the researchers provided educational materials designed to boost self-esteem in patients with DM via a social messaging app. The app allowed for interactive communication, including a question-and-answer feature. Once the app was successfully installed on the patients' mobile devices, a message was sent to each patient announcing the start of the educational program and providing instructions on how to participate in the sessions.
The educational materials were delivered over three sessions, held every other day for a week through the social messaging app. These sessions included audio slides prepared in Microsoft PowerPoint, video clips, and text and audio files shared via the app. The content covered topics such as an introduction to DM, diagnosis modes, symptoms, lifestyle modifications, mental and spiritual health, physical activity, diet, self-confidence, and coping strategies. The technical and educational content of the app was approved by four faculty members from the School of Nursing at Aja University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran. Participants could easily log in to the app to access the educational materials, and their participation was monitored by their usernames. Researchers also sent reminders to the patients to review the educational materials during each session.
It is important to note that the educational materials provided to both the peer education group and the virtual education group were the same. To prevent patients from other groups from accessing the app's educational content before the end of the study, a login password was implemented for the virtual education group. All patients, regardless of group, received routine healthcare services from physicians and nurses at the selected hospitals. After the study was completed, the educational materials were also provided to the patients in the control group. The statistical analyst was blinded to the random assignment of the patients into groups A, B, and C.
3.5. Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage) and analytical tests (paired-sample t-test, chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and one-way ANOVA) were used. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirmed the normality of the variables, and a significance level of P > 0.05 was considered.
3.6. Ethical Considerations
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Aja University of Medical Sciences (IR.AJAUMS.REC.1400.131), Tehran, Iran, and registered on the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (No. IRCT20210808052115N1). The declaration of Helsinki provisions were followed, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw from the study were ensured.
4. Results
The mean age of the patients with T2DM was 40.22 ± 11.50 years (range: Twenty-one to 65), and they had been diagnosed with DM for an average of 51 ± 42.04 months (range: Nine to 346 months). Most participants (53.3%) were male, and 67.4% had educational attainment higher than elementary school. About 60% of the patients reported having adequate income. Most patients (40.7%) were married and had children, and more than half (56.3%) were the head of their families. The majority had hyperlipidemia (43%), hypertension (54.1%), kidney diseases (58.5%), and vision loss or unhealed wounds (63%). The most common disease among their first-degree relatives was DM (48.9%). No significant differences were found among the study groups in terms of patient characteristics (P > 0.05) (Table 1).
Comparison of Individual Characteristics of Patients with Diabetes in Peer Education, Virtual Education, and Control Groups
| Groups | Peer Education a | Virtual Education a | Control a | Statistic | df | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual characteristics | ||||||
| Gender | 1.25 b | 2 | 0.535 | |||
| Male | 21 (46.7) | 26 (57.8) | 25 (55.6) | |||
| Female | 24 (53.3) | 19 (42.2) | 20 (44.4) | |||
| Level of education | -7.448 b | 4 | 0.114 | |||
| Informal literate | 6 (13.3) | 2 (4.4) | 4 (8.9) | |||
| Elementary | 12 (26.7) | 6 (13.3 | 14 (31.1) | |||
| Above elementary | 27 (60) | 37 (82.2) | 27 (60) | |||
| Income | 6.12 b | 4 | 0.192 | |||
| High | 13 (28.9) | 11 (24.4) | 11 (24.4) | |||
| Moderate | 25 (55.6) | 23 (51.1) | 31 (68.9) | |||
| Low | 3 (14.6) | 11 (24.4) | 3 (6.7) | |||
| Head of family | 1.84 b | 4 | 0.800 | |||
| The patient | 22 (48.9) | 27 (60) | 27 (60) | |||
| Spouse | 21 (46.7) | 16 (35.6) | 17 (37.8) | |||
| Children | 2 (4.4) | 2 (4.4) | 1 (2.2) | |||
| A person caring for the patient | 28.67 c | 10 | 0.236 | |||
| Single | 6 (13.3) | 3 (6.7) | 1 (2.2) | |||
| With wife | 24 (53.3) | 10 (22.2) | 14 (31.1) | |||
| Wife and children | 13 (28.9) | 25 (55.6) | 17 (37.8) | |||
| With children | 2 (4.4) | 0 (0) | 3 (6.7) | |||
| With parents | 0 (0) | 6 (13.3) | 10 (22.2) | |||
| Other cases | 0 (0) | 1 (2.2) | 0 (0) | |||
| Hyperlipidemia | 0.911b | 4 | 0.923 | |||
| Yes | 22 (48.9) | 19 (42.2) | 17 (39.5) | |||
| No | 17 (37.8) | 20 (44.4) | 20 (46.5) | |||
| Unknown | 6 (13.3) | 6 (13.3) | 6 (14) | |||
| Hypertension | 3.84 b | 4 | 0.429 | |||
| Yes | 22 (48.90 | 16 (35.6) | 13 (29.5) | |||
| No | 20 (44.40) | 26 (57.8) | 27 (61.4) | |||
| Unknown | 3 (6.7) | 3 (6.3) | 4 (9.1) | |||
| Kidney disease | 33.794 b | 6 | 0.366 | |||
| Yes | 11 (24.4) | 3 (6.7) | 16 (35.6) | |||
| No | 17 (37.8) | 40 (88.9) | 22 (48.9) | |||
| Unknown | 16 (35.6) | 2 (4.4) | 7 (15.6) | |||
| Unhealed wound | 14.03 b | 4 | 0.273 | |||
| Yes | 6 (13.3) | 5 (11.1) | 9 (20) | |||
| No | 21 (46.7) | 34 (75.6) | 30 (66.7) | |||
| Unknown | 18 (40) | 6 (13.3) | 6 (13.3) | |||
| The most important disease of first-degree relatives c | 12.11c | 10 | 0.248 | |||
| Blood pressure | 4 (9.1) | 8 (25.8) | 10 (22.2) | |||
| Diabetes | 28 (63.6) | 46 (51.6) | 22 (48.9) | |||
| Blood fat | 8 (18.2) | 6 (19.4) | 10 (22.2) | |||
| Kidney disease | 4 (9.1) | 0 (0) | 2 (4.4) | |||
| Unhealed wound | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.2) | |||
| Retinopathy | 0 (0) | 1 (3.2) | 0 (0) |
Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in the RSES mean scores between the study groups (P = 0.665). However, post-intervention, the RSES mean scores in the virtual education group were significantly higher than those in the other two groups (P = 0.002). The RSES mean scores in the peer education group after the intervention did not differ significantly from the pre-intervention stage (P = 0.067), while the virtual education group using the mHealth app showed a significant increase in scores (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the RSES mean scores in the control group before and after the intervention (P = 0.960) (Table 2).
Comparison of the Mean Self-esteem Score of Diabetics Before Training and After Training in Three Groups
| Variables and Stage | Peer Education | Virtual Education | Control | F | df | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-esteem | ||||||
| Pre-intervention | 16.66 (3.45) | 17.24 (3.43) | 16.48 (5.35) | 0.410 | 2 | 0.665 |
| Post-intervention | 17.78 (3.73) | 22.09 (3.37) | 16.47 (4.65) | 24.941 | 2 | 0.001 a |
| Paired t-test statistics, df, P-value | t = -1.879, df = 44, P = 0.067 | t = -9.850, df = 44, P = 0.001 a | t = 0.050, df = 44, P = 0.960 | - | - | - |
Post-hoc test results revealed that the RSES mean scores in the peer education group after the HLSE program did not significantly differ from the control group (P = 0.118). However, a significant difference was observed between the mean RSES scores of the patients with T2DM in the peer education group and those in the virtual education group using the mHealth app after the intervention, with the scores being significantly higher in the virtual education group (P = 0.001). Additionally, the RSES mean scores of the patients in the virtual education group were significantly higher than those in the control group following the completion of the HLSE program (P = 0.001) (Table 3). The overall effect size of the intervention on the patients' self-esteem was 0.61.
Comparison of the Mean Difference in Self-esteem of Patients with Diabetes After Intervention in the Peer Education, mHealth, and Control Groups
5. Discussion
This study compared the effects of HLSE through peer education and virtual education using the mHealth app on self-esteem in patients with T2DM. Both methods positively impacted self-esteem, with the overall effect size being moderate to high. However, virtual education via the mHealth app had a more significant effect on self-esteem than peer education. Trento et al. reported that self-management training and psychological support significantly improved self-esteem in patients with type 1 DM (37). Similarly, Poorgholami et al. found that self-care education boosted self-esteem in hemodialysis patients (38). Fallah et al. also noted that family-centered education significantly elevated self-esteem in patients with T2DM compared to patient-centered education (39).
These findings are consistent with the current study's results, although peer education in this study did not significantly enhance self-esteem in patients with T2DM, which may be attributed to differences in educational methods and study populations. Abd-alrazaq et al. concluded that using mobile apps was more efficient and convenient than traditional methods for communication between healthcare workers and patients (40), aligning with this study’s findings. Molavynejad et al. also showed that tele-education was more effective than in-person education for dietary regimen compliance in patients with T2DM (30).
On the other hand, an interventional study investigating the effects of a structured education program demonstrated no significant change in self-esteem in the intervention group (41). A systematic review by Drew et al. similarly found that lifestyle interventions had only a slight impact on self-esteem in men (42). These discrepancies may be due to differences in the populations examined, as the current study involved patients with T2DM, while Drew et al.'s (42) study involved mentally healthy men. The findings confirm that virtual education via online interactive classroom sessions and a mobile-based app, like mHealth, is more effective than peer education in improving self-esteem in patients with T2DM.
5.1. Limitations and Strengths
One limitation of this study was the potential for patients in the intervention and control groups to share educational materials, particularly in the virtual education group. To mitigate this, patients were asked not to share the content until the end of the study. A key strength of the study was the simultaneous comparison of two innovative educational methods. Another strength was combining virtual classroom sessions with the mobile-based mHealth app.
5.2. Conclusions
The results demonstrated that both educational methods, peer education and virtual education, positively affected self-esteem in patients with T2DM. However, the effectiveness of virtual education using a mobile-based app (mHealth) on self-esteem was more pronounced than that of peer education. These findings provide valuable insights into the optimal use of distance education and educational apps. Since virtual education and apps allow for flexible learning at different times and locations, and learners can repeatedly access the materials to achieve mastery of the content, these innovative, comprehensive methods are highly recommended for managing chronic conditions such as DM. It is further suggested that future studies investigate the impact of virtual education via mobile-based apps and artificial intelligence capabilities on self-esteem in other patient populations.
Acknowledgements
References
-
1.
Tomic D, Shaw JE, Magliano DJ. The burden and risks of emerging complications of diabetes mellitus. Nature Rev Endocrinol. 2022;18(9):525-39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-022-00690-7.
-
2.
Ray KK, Nicholls SJ, Li N, Louie MJ, Brennan D, Lincoff A, et al. Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid among patients with and without diabetes: prespecified analysis of the CLEAR Outcomes randomised trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2024;12(1):19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587(23)00316-9.
-
3.
Moradpour F, Rezaei S, Piroozi B, Moradi G, Moradi Y, Piri N, et al. Prevalence of prediabetes, diabetes, diabetes awareness, treatment, and its socioeconomic inequality in west of Iran. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22779-9.
-
4.
Zheng Y, Ley SH, Hu FB. Global aetiology and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(2):88-98. [PubMed ID: 29219149]. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2017.151.
-
5.
Coates VE, Boore JR. Knowledge and diabetes self-management. Patient Educ Couns. 1996;29(1):99-108. [PubMed ID: 9006226]. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-3991(96)00938-x.
-
6.
Asadzandi M, Farsi Z, Najafi Mehri S, Karimizarchi AA. [Educational intervention focusing on health belief model in health beliefs, awareness and behavior of diabetic patients]. Iran J Diabetes Lipid Disorders. 2006;6(2):169-76. FA.
-
7.
Marques MB, Coutinho JFV, Martins MC, Lopes MVO, Maia JC, Silva MJD. Educational intervention to promote self-care in older adults with diabetes mellitus. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2019;53. e03517. [PubMed ID: 31800812]. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-220X2018026703517.
-
8.
Seuring T, Rhode S, Rogge L, Rau H, Besancon S; Marthoenis, et al. Using peer education to improve diabetes management and outcomes in a low-income setting: a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2019;20(1):548. [PubMed ID: 31477164]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6719346]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3656-1.
-
9.
Madmoli M, Izadi M, Madmoli M, Khodadadi M, Papi Ahmadi F, Abbaszade Aliabad M. A Systematic Review Study of the Most Important Complications of Chemotherapy in Cancer Patients. J Biotechnol Bioengineering. 2019;3(1):2-7. https://doi.org/10.22259/2637-5362.0301002.
-
10.
Zhang Y, Li X, Luo S, Liu C, Xie Y, Guo J, et al. Use, Perspectives, and Attitudes Regarding Diabetes Management Mobile Apps Among Diabetes Patients and Diabetologists in China: National Web-Based Survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(2). e12658. [PubMed ID: 30735147]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6384538]. https://doi.org/10.2196/12658.
-
11.
Torabikhah M, Farsi Z, Sajadi SA. Comparing the effects of mHealth app use and face-to-face training on the clinical and laboratory parameters of dietary and fluid intake adherence in hemodialysis patients: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Nephrol. 2023;24(1):194. [PubMed ID: 37386428]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10308810]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-023-03246-7.
-
12.
Dung DTH. The advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning. IOSR J Res Method Educ. 2020;10(3):45-8.
-
13.
Oliveira Dias MD, Albergarias Lopes RDO, Teles AC. Will Virtual Replace Classroom Teaching? Lessons from Virtual Classes via Zoom in the Times of COVID-19. J Adv Educ Philosophy. 2020;4(5):208-13. https://doi.org/10.36348/jaep.2020.v04i05.004.
-
14.
Safdar S, Ren M, Chudhery MAZ, Huo J, Rehman H, Rafique R. Using cloud-based virtual learning environments to mitigate increasing disparity in urban-rural academic competence. Technological Forecasting Soc Change. 2022;176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121468.
-
15.
Torabi Khah M, Farsi Z, Sajadi SA. Comparing the effects of mHealth application based on micro-learning method and face-to-face training on treatment adherence and perception in haemodialysis patients: a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2023;13(6). e071982. [PubMed ID: 37270196]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10254999]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-071982.
-
16.
Wu X, Guo X, Zhang Z. The Efficacy of Mobile Phone Apps for Lifestyle Modification in Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(1). e12297. [PubMed ID: 30664494]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6350094]. https://doi.org/10.2196/12297.
-
17.
Naciri A, Baba MA, Achbani A, Kharbach A. Mobile Learning in Higher Education: Unavoidable Alternative during COVID-19. Aquademia. 2020;4(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8227.
-
18.
OBERLO. How Many People Own Smartphones?. 2023. Available from: https://www.oberlo.com/blog/mobile-usage-statistics.
-
19.
Shan R, Sarkar S, Martin SS. Digital health technology and mobile devices for the management of diabetes mellitus: state of the art. Diabetologia. 2019;62(6):877-87. [PubMed ID: 30963188]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-4864-7.
-
20.
Sun Y, You W, Almeida F, Estabrooks P, Davy B. The Effectiveness and Cost of Lifestyle Interventions Including Nutrition Education for Diabetes Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(3):404-421 e36. [PubMed ID: 28236962]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5330213]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2016.11.016.
-
21.
Ozturk A, Akin S, Kundakci N. Self-esteem mediates the relationship perceived stigma with self-efficacy for diabetes management in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Saudi Med J. 2022;43(10):1157-64. [PubMed ID: 36261206]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9994505]. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2022.43.10.20220344.
-
22.
Molla GJ, Ismail-Beigi F, Larijani B, Khaloo P, Moosaie F, Alemi H, et al. Smoking and Diabetes Control in Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Study From the 2018 National Program for Prevention and Control of Diabetes of Iran. Can J Diabetes. 2020;44(3):246-52. [PubMed ID: 31494031]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2019.07.002.
-
23.
Rouholamini S, Gheibizadeh M, Maraghi E, Jahanshahi A. The Effects of a Training Program Based on the Health Promotion Model on Physical Activity in Women with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2020;25(3):224-31. [PubMed ID: 32724768]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7299420]. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_97_19.
-
24.
Koloverou E, Tentolouris N, Bakoula C, Darviri C, Chrousos G. Implementation of a stress management program in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Hormones (Athens). 2014;13(4):509-18. [PubMed ID: 25555183]. https://doi.org/10.14310/horm.2002.1492.
-
25.
Chan DK, Lonsdale C, Ho PY, Yung PS, Chan KM. Patient motivation and adherence to postsurgery rehabilitation exercise recommendations: the influence of physiotherapists' autonomy-supportive behaviors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(12):1977-82. [PubMed ID: 19969157]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.05.024.
-
26.
Alhani F. [Design and evaluation of family centered model of empowerment in the prevention of iron deficiency anemic]. Tehran, Iran: Tarbiat Modarres University; 2004. FA.
-
27.
Jiang S, Ngien A. The Effects of Instagram Use, Social Comparison, and Self-Esteem on Social Anxiety: A Survey Study in Singapore. Soc Med + Soc. 2020;6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120912488.
-
28.
Wu C. The relationship between attachment style and self-concept clarity: The mediation effect of self-esteem. Personality Individ Diff. 2009;47(1):42-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.043.
-
29.
Ayran G, Firat M, Kucukakca G, Cuneydioglu B, Tahta K, Avci E. The Effect of Peer Education upon Breast Self-Examination Behaviors and Self-Esteem among University Students. Eur J Breast Health. 2017;13(3):138-44. [PubMed ID: 28894853]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5544144]. https://doi.org/10.5152/tjbh.2016.3264.
-
30.
Molavynejad S, Miladinia M, Jahangiri M. A randomized trial of comparing video telecare education vs. in-person education on dietary regimen compliance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a support for clinical telehealth Providers. BMC Endocr Disord. 2022;22(1):116. [PubMed ID: 35501846]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9063130]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-022-01032-4.
-
31.
Shojaeezadeh D, Sharifirad G, Tol A, Mohajeri Tehrani MR, Alhani F. Effect of empowerment model on distress and diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Nurs Educ. 2012;1(1).
-
32.
Patnaik L, Panigrahi SK, Sahoo AK, Mishra D, Muduli AK, Beura S. Effectiveness of Mobile Application for Promotion of Physical Activity Among Newly Diagnosed Patients of Type II Diabetes - A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Prev Med. 2022;13:54. [PubMed ID: 35706879]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9188870]. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_92_20.
-
33.
Khavasi M, Shamsizadeh M, Varaei S, Rezaei M, Elhami S, Masroor D. [The Effect of Peer Education on Diabetes Quality of Life in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial]. Avicenna J Nurs Midwifery Care. 2017;25(3):8-16. FA. https://doi.org/10.21859/nmj-25032.
-
34.
Nedjat S, Montazeri A, Mohammad K, Majdzadeh R, Nabavi N, Nedjat F, et al. [Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis Compared to the Healthy Population in Tehran]. Iran J Epidemiol. 2006;2(3):19-24. FA.
-
35.
Sharifi Neyestanak N, Ghodoosi Boroojeni M, Seyedfatemi N, Heydari M, Hoseini A. [Self esteem and its associated factors in patients with multiple sclerosis]. Iran J Nurs. 2012;25(78). FA.
-
36.
Kariminejad K, Mansouri L, Movahedi M, Hosseini H. [The Effectiveness of Self-Efficacy Training on Self-Esteem and Achievement Motivation in Women with Disabilities of Welfare Organization of Khoramabad City]. Quarterly J Soc Work. 2018;6(4):43-50. FA.
-
37.
Trento M, Merlo S, Durando O, Rapetti S, Cavallo F, Porta M. Self-management education and psychological support improve self-esteem in people with type 1 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2017;54(4):415-6. [PubMed ID: 27796657]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-016-0935-0.
-
38.
Poorgholami F, Javadpour S, Saadatmand V, Jahromi MK. Effectiveness of Self-Care Education on the Enhancement of the Self-Esteem of Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;8(2):132-6. [PubMed ID: 26383201]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4804061]. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v8n2p132.
-
39.
Fallah B, Moghanippur F, Nasiriani K, Madadizadeh F, Mehrabbeik A. [A Comparative Study of the Effect of Family-centered and Patient-centered Education on Self-efficacy and Self-esteem of Patients with Type II Diabete]. J Diabetes Nurs. 2022;10(1):1783-95. FA.
-
40.
Abd-alrazaq A, Suleiman N, Baagar K, Jandali N, Alhuwail D, Abdalhakam I, et al. Patients and healthcare workers experience with a mobile application for self-management of diabetes in Qatar: A qualitative study. Computer Method Programs Biomedicine Update. 2021;1:100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2021.100002.
-
41.
Engel L, Cummins R. Impact of dose adjustment for normal eating in Australia (OzDAFNE) on subjective wellbeing, coping resources and negative affects in adults with type 1 diabetes: a prospective comparison study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;91(3):271-9. [PubMed ID: 21146889]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2010.11.023.
-
42.
Drew RJ, Morgan PJ, Pollock ER, Young MD. Impact of male-only lifestyle interventions on men's mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2020;21(7). e13014. [PubMed ID: 32181565]. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13014.