Skip to main content

Socio-economic determinants of attendance at diabetes self-management education program: using Andersen’s behavioral model

Abstract

Background

Diabetes self-management education is an effective factor for improving outcomes and quality of life in patients with diabetes. However, little information is available on the factors associated with participation or non-participation in self-management education programs in people with diabetes. The aim of this study was to explore the factors affecting on the attendance of patients with diabetes in the diabetes self-management education program.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019 on 384 patients with diabetes referred to the main comprehensive health centers of Mashhad, Iran. All patients were linked with a diabetes self-management education program that lasted three months and involved 12 sessions. We explore the factors affecting on attending in diabetes self-management education program using Andersen’s behavioral model. Data for independent variables (predisposing, enabling, and need factors) were gathered at the beginning of the training program using registration forms. Dependent variable (attendance of patients with diabetes in the training program) was checked at the end of the program. Univariate and multivariate analysis were done with SPSS v.25.

Results

The results of this study showed that women were less likely to participate in the self-management education program than men (OR=0.414; P<0.05). Also, age, travel time, health status and years with diabetes have negative significantly correlated with participation in the education program (P<0.05). The study showed that patients with diabetes aged≥65 were less participated in the training program than those ≤40 (OR=0.159; P<0.05). Also, patients who lived farther than 40 min away from training center were less likely to participate for this program than patients that live in an area<20 min away from training center (OR=0.196; P<0.05). Odds of attending in training program for patients with poor health status was less than patients with excellent health status (OR=0.282; P<0.05). Participation in training program were low in patients with more than 5-year diabetes duration compared to less than 1 year (OR=0.176; P<0.05).

Conclusion

The implementation of the classes at the right time and online, Reduce the distance between people and the place of the class, providing facilities and providing infrastructure may be appropriate to involve women and the elderly.

Peer Review reports

Background

Diabetes mellitus (DM) has been one of the most common chronic diseases for the last two decades [1]. According to estimates by the World Health Organization, if there is no managerial intervention, the number of people with the disease will increase from 346 million in 2018 to twice in 2030 [1]; And it is estimated that 9.2 million of them will be related to Iran [2]. The main reason for global attention to diabetes is its high prevalence and complications, because diabetes increases disability, reduces life expectancy, imposes heavy medical costs, and kills about 5 million people annually worldwide [3, 4].

In order to control diabetes and its complications, self-management is a useful and necessary strategy, because 95% of care is provided by the patient [5]. Control of the disease requires daily self-management, including the use of prescribed medications, regular self-monitoring, a healthy diet, and regular exercise [6]. Therefore, patients with diabetes and their families need to learn and practice new lifestyle skills [7].

In this regard, a simple concept called diabetes self-management education (DSME) is introduced, which means the promotion of self-determination and self-regulation [8]; And patients are encouraged to participate as much as possible in their treatment process by sharing information and cooperating in decision making [8]. The American Diabetes Association and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also define DSME in a joint statement as a process that facilitates the knowledge, skills, and competencies necessary for diabetes self-management [9, 10]. As a result, DSME is recognized as an essential part of diabetes treatment [8]. To emphasize the need to teach self-management behaviors, it can be said that DSME is effective in improving the quality of life and reducing costs by preventing early and late complications of the disease and ensuring long life for the patient [8, 11].

However, several studies have confirmed the effectiveness of self-management education [12,13,14], but there are few studies about factors affecting on the attendance of patients with diabetes in the DSME programs [15, 16]. People that quit the DSME programs have worse health consequences and control of blood sugar than people who attend in these programs [11]. Currently, inconsistent and little information is available on the factors associated with attendance or non-attendance in DSME programs in people with diabetes. Boakye et al. in a similar study investigated the sociodemographic factors related to engagement in DSME in the United States [16]. However, their finding might be different in a developing country such as Iran. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the factors affecting on the attendance of patients with diabetes in the DSME program based on the Andersen’s behavioral model of health service use in Mashhad, Iran.

Conceptual framework

Andersen’s behavioral model of health service use

In this study, we applied the Andersen’s Behavioral Model of health service use. Anderson model of using health services that depends on individuals’ behavior is a theoretical model and used to study the background and personal features of those who have run into trouble utilizing health services. The objective of this model is to explain the reason of healthcare service use. This model is more far-reaching than others and considers health behavior affected by personal features divisible into three classes of predisposing, enabling and need factors. Predisposing factors are the status quo that may predispose one to use health services. Enabling ones are such factors as personal, familial and social features that can either facilitate or impede benefitting from services. Need factors refer to such factors as individuals’ general health and symptoms evaluated by health service providers [17,18,19,20].

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out from 1 April to 1 July 2019 on patients with diabetes referred to the main comprehensive health centers of Mashhad. Mashhad is a metropolis in the northeast of Iran and the center of Khorasan-e Razavi province.

The sample size was 384, which has been determined with PASS (power analysis and sample size, PASS) software (Alpha=0.05, Beta=0.2).

$$N=\frac{{\left[{z}_{1-\frac{\alpha }{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\overline{P }\left(1-\overline{P }\right)}{R}}+{z}_{1-\beta }\sqrt{{P}_{0}\left(1-{P}_{0}\right)+\frac{{P}_{1}\left(1-{P}_{1}\right)\left(1-R\right)}{R}}\right]}^{2}}{{\left({P}_{0}-{P}_{1}\right)}^{2}\left(1-R\right)}$$

Sample size formula

There are five main comprehensive health centers in Mashhad city (No. 1, 2, 3, and 5 and Samen Health Center). We selected 57 patients with diabetes from each center with convenience sampling. Diabetic patients diagnosed with pregnancy diabetes, glucose intolerance, unstable psychological state, or those who did not want to cooperate in the research project were excluded from the study. It should be noted that the sample size was evenly divided between the centers due to the relatively similar volume of population covered by the four selected centers. In this stage, we held a DSME program for all 384 patients with diabetes that lasted three months and involved 12 sessions. DSME program covered several main topics such as diet, physical activity, blood sugar monitoring, foot care and the management of the psychosocial issues. Non-attendance in DSME program defined as attending the classes fewer than three sessions [21]. We used Andersen’s behavioral model of health services use to predict factors that may facilitate or impede attending in the DSME program. In this model, factors are categorized into three groups. They are predisposing, enabling, and need factors that are used to predict health behaviors or health resource utilization. Predisposing factors are related to pre-existing sociodemographic characteristics; in this study, they include sex, age, education level, employment status and marital status. Factors that can facilitate or impede the use of services are named enabling factors. In this study, they include income/financial situation and geographical access. Need factors refer to the individual’s health status and need perceived by the individual. In this study, they include general health status and years with diabetes. Independent variables (predisposing, enabling, and need factors) were asked at the beginning of the training program using registration forms. At the end of the program, the number of meetings attended by each participant (dependent variable) was checked.

The data were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis was carried out to determine the frequency and percentage of variables. Finally, a logit regression model was used for multivariate analysis.

$${\mathrm{Y}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\alpha +{\beta }_{1}{X}_{i1}+{\beta }_{2}{X}_{i2}+{\beta }_{3}{X}_{i3}+\dots +{\beta }_{n}{X}_{in}+{u}_{i}$$

The dependent variable (Yi) is the probability of attending the DSME program. Yi = 1 for the patients who attended the three or more sessions of DSME program. Yi = 0 stands for the patients who attended the classes fewer than three sessions.

α shows the model intercept, n indicates the number of observations, ui refers to the random intervening component, and Bj = (j = 1, 2, 3, …, n) represent the model unknown parameters that must be estimated. In this equation, Xj stands for the model independent variables including sex, age, marital status, education level, employment status, household income, travel time, health status and years with diabetes.

Results

The descriptive analysis is shown in Table 1. A total of 384 patients with DM were included in the present study. The majority of participants were female (52.3%), in the age group 41–64 years (39.3%), married (82.3%), with diploma and less education (59.9%), employed (74.5%), with middle household income (58.3%), less than 20 minutes away from the training center (40.4%), with very good health status (29.2%) and with 1-3 years history of DM (33.6%).

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of patients

R2, the coefficient of determination, is the relative power of the Probit and the Logit models. Model summary was shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Model Summary

Based on the results of the Table 3, insignificant Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test (p-value = 0.774) shows that the final binary logistic regression model was good fit.

Table 3 Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Based on the results of the Table 4, sex was one of the strong predictor of the participation in the DSME program. The study showed that women were less likely to participate in the DSME program than men (OR=0.414; P<0.05). The results of the logit model analysis indicate that the probability of participating in DSME program decreases with age. The study showed that patients aged≥65 were less likely to participate in DSME program than those ≤40 (OR=0.159; P<0.05). Also, patients that live in an area >40 min away from training center were less likely to participate for this program than patients that live in an area<20 min away from training center (OR=0.196; P<0.05). The study also revealed that odds of attending in training program for patients with poor health status was less than patients with excellent health status (OR=0.282; P<0.05). Participation in training program were low in patients with more than 5-year diabetes duration compared to less than 1 year (OR=0.176; P<0.05).

Table 4 Multivariate logistic regression model

Discussion

This study conducted aimed to investigate the determinant factors related to participation in the DSME program for patients with diabetes. In this study, we found that the participation rate was 43%. Previous studies conducted in developed countries showed that the participation rate varies between about 40% and 55% [16, 21,22,23]. These studies have identified a number of factors that may influence individuals’ decisions to attend training programs. These factors may vary between countries, so it is very important to identify and remove these obstacles. In this study, we assessed the effects of predisposing, enabling and need factors on the participating in the DSME program for patients with diabetes based on the Andersen’s Behavioral Model of health service use.

Predisposing factors

Our study showed that the probability of participating in the DSME program decreases with age. Our results are consistent with previous studies, where participation in education programs was found to be lower amongst older adults [24, 25]. Older patients experienced a wide range of physical, mental and social health problems and they need extensive supports [26]. Fan et al. in their study reported a significant relationship between age and the type of DSME interventions. Older patients want comprehensive self-management courses that include a combination of educational, behavioral and psychological interventions [27]. Rhee et al. revealed that increasing age was an obstacle to participation in diabetes education [28]. Gucciardi et al. in their study in Canada concluded that patients with diabetes aged over 65 years were more likely to abandon education program than other age groups. It is consistent with our findings [21]. However, several studies showed different findings. Boakye et al. in their study in United States showed that patients with diabetes aged 65 were more likely than respondents aged 18-54 to engage in self-management education program [16]. Also, Cauch-Dudek et al. in a study in Canada reported that younger patients with diabetes were more likely to attend a diabetes self-management education program than older patients [24]. One of the reasons for the differences in the findings could be that the elderly have more free time and less busy in developed countries. Also, one of the reasons for older people to leave the training course in the present study could be because the classes did not meet their needs. Due to old age and complications of the disease, the elderly need more comprehensive and extensive information that should be considered in designing training courses for the elderly.

The findings of the current study showed that participating the educational services of self-management schemes was meaningfully lower among women than men. The findings of various studies also confirm the relationship between self-care behavior in patients with diabetes and gender. Boakye et al. in their study concluded that men were less likely than women to engage in diabetes self-management education [16]. It is inconsistent with our results that could be due to cultural and familial backgrounds and the distribution of responsibilities among family members. Woman tend to attend courses with active participation that involved face-to-face interactions, discussion and sharing information with diabetes educators [29, 30]. Therefore, for women’s participation in self-care programs, special attention should be paid to these points in designing the course. Thus, it is suggested that while performing such educational schemes, women’s conditions be noted. Furthermore, using supplementary educational programs, distance education, holding classes at proper times and short hours can help alleviate these obstacles.

It has been proven that virtual education for self-care programs can improve the health behaviors of consumers and decrease the workload of providers [15, 31]. Online training using common platforms in Iran such as WhatsApp can be effective in increasing the participation of women in the program. However, there may be some barriers such as loss of privacy, addiction, language and digital illiteracy to using virtual space. Therefore, the use of virtual space and online platforms requires the creation of necessary infrastructure, increasing digital literacy and promoting the culture of use.

The present study did not confirm a statistically significant relationship between education level and participation in the DSME program. However, previous studies showed different results. It is might be due to different population study. These studies revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between the education level and completing the training courses for diabetes [24, 25]. Kim et al. in their study in Korea showed that individuals with elementary school education or less were 3 times more likely not to attend training program relative to those with higher education level [32]. Rhee et al. confirmed that non-participation rate for patients with an elementary school education or less were 5 times higher than others [28]. Patients with higher levels of education preferred to acquire standard information about self-management through discussion with diabetes educators. Also, people with higher education level had more self-care behaviors such as blood sugar control [27, 32,33,34].

The results of the logit regression showed no statistically significant difference in attending DSME programs between Unemployed and employed patients. It is consistent with study conducted by Kim et al [32]. However, several other studies showed that working full and part-time were a main factor for inability to attend in diabetes education program. They concluded that conflict between work-time and time for training classes is a substantial factor for non-participation in these programs [21, 28, 35]. The difference in findings may be due to the heavy role and responsibility of housewives in Iran. Although housewives are unemployed, they were reluctant to attend classes due to housework and childcare. Therefore, the use of public media such as television and radio and the design of self-care training software for mobile phones will greatly enable people with different jobs to benefit from training.

Enabling factors

In this study, we did not find a statistically significant relationship between household income status and participation in self-care classes. Previous studies showed that low-income patients were less likely than higher-income respondents to engage in a diabetes education program. Patients with lower socio-economic status may have lower levels of health literacy and more financial barriers to joining educational program than those with higher socio-economic status [16, 24, 25, 36]. The difference in findings may be due to different sample.

In this study, time interval has also been suggested as an effective factor in the participation of patients with diabetes in the DSME programs. The results of this study show that by increasing the distance from the training center, the participation of the patients in self-care programs will be significantly reduced. Previous studies showed that long distance from the education center was an obstacle for participation in training programs [21, 37].

Need factors

The results of our study indicate that leaving the training program was more common with reducing health status. These results are supported with previous research studies. Patients with poor health status experience more physical and psychosocial problems than those with excellent health status. Such problems for patients with diabetes affect their mood and behavior and can lead to reduce their participation in the DSME program. It is claimed that worsening glucose control leads to worsening learning activities [38]. However, Gucciardi et al. in a multivariate logistic regression found that fewer diabetes symptoms was determinant factor to non-participation in education programs [21]. The difference in findings may be due to different sample.

In our study, participation in training program were less likely in patients with more than 5-year diabetes duration compared to those with less than 1 year. However, Kim et al. in their study on Korean patients with diabetes showed different results. They found a positive relationship between diabetes duration and participation rate in education program [32]. Another study in the Netherlands reported that short diabetes duration associated with low participation of patients with diabetes in self-management programs [39]. They argue that worse health conditions increase their concerns and can lead to participation in education program. One of the reasons for the difference in findings may be that people in developing countries do not pay much attention to education. In other words, there is a therapeutic focus. Also, Training classes may not be of the required quality to address the concerns of patients with a poor health condition.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that attending at the DSME program is influenced by predisposing factors (sex, age), enabling factors (geographical access) and need factors (general health status and years with diabetes). The implementation of the classes at the right time and online, reduce the distance between people and the place of the class, providing facilities and providing infrastructure may be appropriate to involve women and the elderly.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to protecting individual patient privacy and data protection regulations, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Pamungkas RA, Chamroonsawasdi K. Self-management based coaching program to improve diabetes mellitus self-management practice and metabolic markers among uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus in Indonesia: A quasi-experimental study. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(1):53–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Esteghamati A, Larijani B, Aghajani MH, Ghaemi F, Kermanchi J, Shahrami A, et al. Diabetes in Iran: prospective analysis from first nationwide diabetes report of National Program for Prevention and Control of Diabetes (NPPCD-2016). Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–10.

  3. Federation ID. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 7th ed. IDF Brussels; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cho N, Shaw J, Karuranga S, Huang Yd, da Rocha Fernandes J, Ohlrogge A, Malanda B. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Davari M, Moghaddam HR, Soola AH. Identifying the Predictors of Self-Management Behaviors in Patients with Diabetes Based on Ecological Approach: A Systematic Review. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2021;17(6):71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Xie Z, Liu K, Or C, Chen J, Yan M, Wang H. An examination of the socio-demographic correlates of patient adherence to self-management behaviors and the mediating roles of health attitudes and self-efficacy among patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes and hypertension. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Koenigsberg MR, Corliss J. Diabetes self-management: facilitating lifestyle change. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(6):362–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Othman MM, Khudadad H, Dughmosh R, Furuya-Kanamori L, Abou-Samra AB, Doi SA. Towards a better understanding of self-management interventions in type 2 diabetes: A concept analysis. Prim Care Diabetes. 2022;16(1):142–9.

  9. Greenwood DA, Gee PM, Fatkin KJ, Peeples M. A systematic review of reviews evaluating technology-enabled diabetes self-management education and support. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(5):1015–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Association AD. Standards of medical care in diabetes–2014. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:S14–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ernawati U, Wihastuti TA, Utami YW. Effectiveness of diabetes self-management education (DSME) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients: Systematic literature review. Journal of Public Health Res. 2021;10(2):2240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Li R, Liang N, Bu F, Hesketh T. The effectiveness of self-management of hypertension in adults using mobile health: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020;8(3):e17776.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bekele BB, Negash S, Bogale B, Tesfaye M, Getachew D, Weldekidan F, Balcha B. The effectiveness of diabetes self-management education (DSME) on glycemic control among T2DM patients randomized control trial: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2020;19(2):1631–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Prabawati D, Natalia L. The Effectiveness of Self-Care Model on Diabetes Self-Management Behaviour. Indones Nurs J Educ Clinic (INJEC). 2020;5(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Allory E, Lucas H, Maury A, Garlantezec R, Kendir C, Chapron A, Fiquet L. Perspectives of deprived patients on diabetes self-management programmes delivered by the local primary care team: a qualitative study on facilitators and barriers for participation, in France. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Adjei Boakye E, Varble A, Rojek R, Peavler O, Trainer AK, Osazuwa-Peters N, Hinyard L. Sociodemographic factors associated with engagement in diabetes self-management education among people with diabetes in the United States. Public Health Rep. 2018;133(6):685–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Andersen R. A behavioral model of families’ use of health services. Chicago: Center for Health Administration Studies, University of Chicago; 1968.

  19. Andersen R, Newman JF. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1973;51:95–124.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bradley EH, McGraw SA, Curry L, Buckser A, King KL, Kasl SV, Andersen R. Expanding the Andersen model: The role of psychosocial factors in long-term care use. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(5):1221–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gucciardi E, DeMelo M, Offenheim A, Stewart DE. Factors contributing to attrition behavior in diabetes self-management programs: a mixed method approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Icks A, Rathmann W, Haastert B, Mielck A, Holle R, Lowel H, et al. Quality of care and extent of complications in a population-based sample of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus The KORA Survey 2000. Dtsch Med Wochenschr (1946). 2006;131(3):73–8.

  23. Ruppert K, Uhler A, Siminerio L. Examining patient risk factors, comorbid conditions, participation, and physician referrals to a rural diabetes self-management education program. Diabetes Educ. 2010;36(4):603–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cauch-Dudek K, Victor JC, Sigmond M, Shah BR. Disparities in attendance at diabetes self-management education programs after diagnosis in Ontario, Canada: a cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Forjuoh SN, Huber C, Bolin JN, Patil SP, Gupta M, Helduser JW, et al. Provision of counseling on diabetes self-management: Are there any age disparities? Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(2):133–9.

  26. Kirkman MS, Briscoe VJ, Clark N, Florez H, Haas LB, Halter JB, et al. Diabetes in older adults. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(12):2650–64.

  27. Fan L, Sidani S. Factors influencing preferences of adults with type 2 diabetes for diabetes self-management education interventions. Can J Diabetes. 2018;42(6):645–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rhee MK, Cook CB, El-Kebbi I, Lyles RH, Dunbar VG, Panayioto RM, et al. Barriers to diabetes education in urban patients perceptions, patterns, and associated factors. Diabetes Educ. 2005;31(3):410–7.

  29. Grzywacz JG, Stoller EP, Brewer-Lowry AN, Bell RA, Quandt SA, Arcury TA. Gender and health lifestyle: an in-depth exploration of self-care activities in later life. Health Educ Behav. 2012;39(3):332–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mathew R, Gucciardi E, De Melo M, Barata P. Self-management experiences among men and women with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a qualitative analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pacaud D, Kelley H, Downey AM, Chiasson M. Successful delivery of diabetes self-care education and follow-up through eHealth media. Can J Diabetes. 2012;36(5):257–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim JM, Hong JW, Noh JH, Kim D-J. Factors associated with participation in diabetes education: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007 to 2009. Diabetes Metab J. 2016;40(6):447–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Flatz A, Casillas A, Stringhini S, Zuercher E, Burnand B, Peytremann-Bridevaux I. Association between education and quality of diabetes care in Switzerland. Int J Gen Med. 2015;8:87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Coonrod BA, Betschart J, Harris MI. Frequency and determinants of diabetes patient education among adults in the US population. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(8):852–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gucciardi E, DeMelo M, Offenheim A, Grace SL, Stewart DE. Patient factors associated with attrition from a self-management education programme. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(6):913–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shah BR, Booth GL. Predictors and effectiveness of diabetes self-management education in clinical practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(1):19–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharifi T, Javan-Noughabi J, Asadi Z, Zarqi M. Reasons for non-participation in a self-care training program for diabetic patients: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kodl CT, Seaquist ER. Cognitive dysfunction and diabetes mellitus. Endocr Rev. 2008;29(4):494–511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bos-Touwen I, Schuurmans M, Monninkhof EM, Korpershoek Y, Spruit-Bentvelzen L. Ertugrul-van der Graaf I, de Wit N, Trappenburg J: Patient and disease characteristics associated with activation for self-management in patients with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure and chronic renal disease: a cross-sectional survey study. PloS One. 2015;10(5):e0126400.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the reviewers, whose useful and constructive criticism significantly improved the paper.

Funding

This paper was financially supported by the Research Center of Social Factors in Health in Kerman University of Medical Sciences with project number 930482.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.J.N and T.SH contributed to the concept and design of the study. Data gathering was conducted by S.T and S.V. J.J.N wrote the main manuscript. All authors approved the final version for submit and publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tahere Sharifi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Ethics Committee of the Kerman University of Medical Sciences [The code of Ethics: IR.KMU.REC.1393.65]. Written informed consent was taken from all the participants. All methods were carried out per relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Javan-Noughabi, J., Tabatabaee, S.S., Vahedi, S. et al. Socio-economic determinants of attendance at diabetes self-management education program: using Andersen’s behavioral model. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 1331 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08749-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08749-x

Keywords