Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Patient-centered education in dyslipidemia management: a systematic review Cover

Patient-centered education in dyslipidemia management: a systematic review

Open Access
|Jun 2023

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the study selection process according to PRISMA flowchart. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Flow diagram of the study selection process according to PRISMA flowchart. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Summary of studies included

Study’s first author, yearStudy locationDesignSample sizePatient demographicSetting
Eaton (2011) [3]New England2-arm RCT4,105Patients with regular follow-up and interested in coronary heart disease risk reductionPrimary care clinic
Goyer (2012) [6]Canada3-arm RCT185Patients with at least 2 cardiovascular risk factorsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
McDermott (2012) [19]The United States3-arm RCT355Peripheral arterial disease patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg·dL−1Medical institution (university)
Ockene (1999) [20]The United States3-arm RCT1,162Patients with blood TC level in the highest 25th percentile and had a previous scheduled visitCommunity health center (health maintenance organization)
Fortin (2016) [21]Canada (North America)3-arm RCT664Patients aged 18–75 years with at least 1 chronic conditions or risk factorsPrimary care practice
Lear (2002) [22]Canada (North America)2-arm RCT302Patients with ischemic heart diseaseHospital
Lin (2012) [23]The United States2-arm RCT214Patients with poorly controlled diabetes and coronary heart diseasesHospital (medical center)
Allen (2011) [24]The United States2-arm RCT525Patients with established CVD and LDL-C/BP/HbA1c exceeding target goalCommunity health center
Babazono, (2007) [25]Japan2-arm RCT99Patients with high SBP/DBP/HbA1c during annual health checkupHealth center
Bosworth (2018) [26]The United States2-arm RCT428Patients with poorly controlled hypertension and/or hypercholesterolemiaMedical center/hospital
Byrne (2020) [27]The United Kingdom2-arm RCT212Patients prescribed with statins and had TC ≥5 mmol·L−1Primary care center
Ho (2014) [28]The United States2-arm RCT241Patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome as the primary reasonMedical center (hospital)
Iturralde (2019) [29]The United States2-arm RCT647Patients with ≥1 uncontrolled CVD risk factors for at least 2 years beforeKaiser Permanente (non-profit integrated healthcare delivery system)
Jarab (2012) [30]Jordan2-arm RCT156Follow-up patients with type 2 diabetesHospital
Jiang (2007) [31]China2-arm RCT167Patients who were first hospitalized with either angina pectoris or myocardial infarctionHospital
Maindal (2014) [32]Denmark2-arm RCT509Patients aged 40–69 years at the time of screening and diagnosis of screening-detected type 2 diabetesPrimary care clinic
Mok (2013) [33]Hong Kong2-arm RCT82Patients diagnosed with myocardial infarctionHospital
Sol (2008) [34]The Netherlands2-arm RCT154Referred patients with symptomatic vascular diseasesHospital
Zhang (2019) [35]China2-arm RCT62Patients with history of cardiometabolic syndromeMedical university-affiliated hospital
Daumit (2020) [36]The United States2-arm RCT269Patients with at least 1 cardiovascular risk factorCommunity outpatient clinic

Summary of impact of interventions

First authorPsychosocial/cognitiveBehavioral (smoking/physical activity/diet or medication adherence)Cholesterol levelOther cardiometabolic outcomes (BP/weight/BMI/HbA1c)Other outcomesDifference in LDL level (reduction) in intervention and control groups
Eaton [3]0 LDL(95% CI, OR = 1.27)0 non-HDL(95% CI, OR = 1.23)
Goyer [6]+ Mental health status(P< 0.001)+ Kilocalories intake(P= 0.022)+ Physical activity(P< 0.001)0 Smoking status+ TC(P< 0.001)+ TG(P= 0.047)0 HDL+ LDL(P= 0.046)+ SBP(P< 0.001)+ Weight(P< 0.001)+ BMI(P< 0.001)+ HbA1c0 Waist circumference+ Reduction in CVD risk score (Framingham Risk Score)(P< 0.005)Difference in intervention group: 9.0 mg·dL−1Difference in control group: 5.4 mg·dL−1
McDermott [19]+ Patient activation(95% CI, P= 0.016)+ Self-efficacy(95% CI, P< 0.001)+ LDL(95% CI, P= 0.035)+ Pharmacotherapy initiation and adjustments(95% CI, P< 0.001)Difference in intervention group: 18.4 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 11.1 mg·dL−1
Ockene [20]+ Reduction in consumption of saturated fats(P= 0.01)0 TC(P= 0.07)0 LDL(P= 0.10)0 HDL(P= 0.09)0 TG(P= 0.03)+ Weight(P< 0.001)+ BMI(P< 0.001)Difference in intervention group: 1.98 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 0.18 mg·dL−1
Fortin [21]+ Self-monitoring(95% CI, P= 0.001, RR = 2.40)+ Emotional well-being(95% CI, P= 0.012, RR = 1.73)+ Skill and technique acquisition(95% CI, P= 0.001, RR = 1.70)0 Physical activity(95% CI, P= 0.276, OR = 3.81)0 Fruit and vegetable consumption(95% CI, P= 0.198, OR = 2.36)+ BMI(95% CI, P< 0.001)
Lear [22]0 Self-efficacy0 Perceived stress0 Smoking status0 Physical activity0 TC0 LDL0 HDL0 TG+ BMI(P< 0.05)+ Waist circumference(P< 0.05)0 BP+ Higher PTCA procedures(P< 0.05)+ Less CABG procedures(P< 0.05)
Lin [23]+ Glucose monitoring(P= 0.06, RR = 1.28)+ BP monitoring(P< 0.001, RR = 3.20)0 Medication adherence+ Pharmacotherapy initiation and adjustment rates for antidepressants(P< 0.001, RR = 6.20)+ Pharmacotherapy initiation and adjustment rates for insulin(P< 0.001, RR = 2.97)+ Pharmacotherapy initiation and adjustment rates for antihypertensive medications(P< 0.001, RR = 1.86)
Allen [24]+ Perceptions of the quality of chronic illness care(95% CI, P< 0.001)+ TC(95% CI, P< 0.001)+ LDL(95% CI, P< 0.001)+ TG(95% CI, P= 0.013)0 HDL(95% CI, P= 0.497)+ SBP(95% CI, P= 0.003)+ DBP(95% CI, P= 0.013)+ HbA1c(95% CI, P= 0.034)Difference in intervention group: 21.6 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 5.7 mg·dL−1
Babazono [25]+ Number of steps per day(P< 0.001)+ Vegetable intake(95% CI, P< 0.05, OR = 3.80)0 Total calorie intake0 TC0 LDL0 TG0 HDL0 BMI0 BP0 HbA1cDifference in intervention group: 1.4 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): increment of 0.1 mg·dL−1
Bosworth [26]+ TC(95% CI, P= 0.03)0 LDL0 HDL(95% CI, P= 0.08)0 SBP(P= 0.34)0 DBP0 HbA1c(95% CI)(P= 0.72)Difference in intervention group: 9.7 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 8.9 mg·dL−1
Byrne [27]+ Perceived control and understanding of the condition(95% CI, P< 0.027)0 Medication adherence to statin(95% CI, P= 0.968, OR = 1.02)+ Walking activity(95% CI, P< 0.001)0 TC(95% CI, P= 0.120)0 HDL(95% CI, P= 0.814)0 SBP(95% CI, P= 0.096)+ DBP(95% CI, P= 0.002)+ Waist circumference(95% CI, P= 0.012)0 BMI(95% CI, P= 0.088)0 CVD risk score(95% CI, P= 0.165)TC: difference in intervention group: 12.42 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 6.12 mg·dL−1
Ho [28]+ Medication adherence(95% CI, P= 0.03)0 LDL(P= 0.90)0 SBP(P= 0.50)0 DBP(P= 0.50)Difference in intervention group: 13 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 12 mg·dL−1
Iturralde [29]+ Patient activation(P= 0.01)+ Patient-centered care(P= 0.003)0 Statin adherence(P= 0.93)0 LDL(P= 0.97)0 SBP(P= 0.80)0 HbA1c(P= 0.28)0 1 year CVD risk factor+ Engagement with the healthcare system using online tools(P= 0.01)
Jarab [30]+ Medication adherence(self-report)(P= 0.003)+ Self-care activities(P= 0.007)+ LDL(P= 0.031, 95% CI)+ TG(P= 0.017, 95% CI)0 HDL(P= 0.728, 95% CI)+ SBP(P= 0.035, 95% CI)+ DBP(P= 0.026, 95% CI)+ HbA1c(P= 0.019, 95% CI)0 BMI(P= 0.189, 95% CI)Difference in intervention group: 10.8 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 7.2 mg·dL−1
Jiang [31]+ Medication adherence (at 3 months)(P= 0.029)0 Medication adherence (at 6 months)(P= 0.143)+ Walking activity (at 6 months)(P= 0.002)+ Step 2 diet adherence (at 6 months)(P= 0.002)0 Smoking status+ TC(at 6 months)(P= 0.001)+ TG(at 6 months) (P= 0.011)+ LDL(at 6 months)(P= 0.001)0 HDL(at 6 months)(P= 0.293)+ SBP (at 3 months)(P= 0.021)0 SBP (at 6 months)(P= 0.216)+ DBP (at 3 months)(P= 0.030)0 DBP (at 6 months)(P= 0.148)0 Body weight (at 3 months)(P= 0.157)0 Body weight (at 6 months)(P= 0.099)Difference in intervention group: 8.1 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 2.7 mg·dL−1
Maindal [32]+ Patient activation(P= 0.002, 95% CI)0 Physical activity(P= 0.600, 95% CI)0 Smoking status(P= 0.056, 95% CI)+ TC(P= 0.027, 95% CI)0 SBP(P= 0.372, 95% CI)0 DBP(P= 0.140, 95% CI)0 HbA1c(P= 0.371, 95% CI)0 BMI(P= 0.831, 95% CI)0- to 10-year CVD risk score(P= 0.878, 95% CI)TC: difference between intervention and control groups: 4.32 mg·dL−1
Mok [33]+ Reduction in consumption of saturated fats and salted food(P< 0.001)+ Increased intake of heart-healthy foods(P< 0.001)0 TC0 TG+ HDL(P= 0.001)Difference in intervention group: no differenceDifference in control group (usual care): increase 4.63 mg·dL−1
Sol [34]0 Total self-efficacy+ Self-efficacy in choosing healthy food(P= 0.01)+ Self-efficacy in doing extra exercises(P= 0.03)0 LDL(95% CI, OR = 0.95)0 SBP(95% CI, OR = 1.07)0 BMI(95% CI, OR = 0.93)
Zhang [35]+ Quality of life(P< 0.001)0 Physical activity0 Smoking status+TG(P< 0.001)+ SBP(P< 0.001)+ Waist circumference(P< 0.001)TG: difference in intervention group: 14.4 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): increase of 3.6 mg·dL−1
Daumit [36]+ Smoking status(P= 0.004, 95% CI)0 TC0 HDL0 LDL0 SBP+ Reduction in 10-year Framingham risk score(P= 0.02, 95% CI)Difference in intervention group: 8.2 mg·dL−1Difference in control group (usual care): 3.7 mg·dL−1

Criteria assessments for studies included

Study’s first authorDoes the study describe PCE?1. Clearly focused research question2. Was the assignment of participants randomized?3. Were all participants accounted for at its conclusion?4. Were the participants/investigators blinded to intervention?5. Were the study groups similar at the start of RCT? -was a baseline set?-were any differences found between study groups that may affect outcome6. Apart from the intervention, did each study group receive same level of care?7. Were the effects of intervention reported comprehensively? - were power calculation, etc., reported8. Was the precision of the estimate of the intervention or treatment effect reported? Were CIs reported?9. Do the benefits of the intervention outweigh the harms and costs?10. Can the results be applied to any local population?11. Would the intervention provide greater value than any of the existing interventions?
Eaton [3]111101111111
Goyer [6]111111111111
McDermott [19]111101111111
Ockene [20]111101111111
Fortin [21]111111111111
Lear [22]111111111111
Lin [23]111101111111
Allen [24]111101111111
Babazono [25]111101111111
Bosworth [26]111101111111
Byrne [27]111111111111
Ho [28]111111111111
Iturralde [29]111111111111
Jarab [30]111111111111
Jiang [31]111111111111
Maindal [32]111111111111
Mok [33]111111111111
Sol [34]111111111111
Zhang [35]111111111111
Daumit [36]111111111111

Search strategy for the databases

NumberKeyword
1Dyslipidemia
2Hyperlipidemia
3Hypercholesterolemia
4Hypertriglyceridemia
51 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4
6Patient centered (text word)
7Patient centered education
8Patient education
9Patient empowerment
106 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9 OR 10
116 AND 10

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles

Inclusion criteriaExclusion criteria
✓ English articles only➢ Review article (systematic review and meta-analysis)
✓ RCT➢ Articles with study protocol only
✓ Published from inception till April 2021➢ Articles with poor randomization method
✓ Included patient education as the intervention➢ Articles with unclear description of patient education
✓ Intervention used PCE with the following criteria:
– Applied SDM (the decision is mutually agreed by the patients and health-care professionals)
– Mentioned patient-centered approaches such as MI
✓ Articles assessed by the CASP checklist for assessment of study quality

Summary of interventions

First author, yearInterventions byIntervention durationInterventionsPatient-centered elementsControlTheories/models/key mechanism
Eaton (2011) [3]Physician12 months
  • 4 academic detailing sessions

  • Physicians received patient education toolkit, a computer kiosk with patient activation software, and PDA-based decision support tool

  • Patients were guided via interactive SDM aided by the PDA decision support tool

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Physicians received PDA only without the decision support tool and no patient education toolkit

Theory: chronic care model
Goyer (2012) [6]Nutritionist Psychologist Kinesiologist Nurse Physician3 months
  • 12 weekly group sessions of 3 h between Months 3 and 6 of the study

  • Follow-up sessions every 3 months until the end of the second 2-year protocol

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • MI

  • Management was left to the family physician. Patients were called after 1 year for address verification and reminder for the 2-year follow up

  • Called for the 2-year assessment

Theory/model: health belief model, Prochaska stages of change
McDermott (2012) [19]Health counselor12 months
  • Patient-centered counseling for medication adherence and recommendation to visit the physicians

  • Telephone calls every 6 weeks for 12-month duration advising about medication adherence and encouragement to increase walking activity

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Second control arm:

    • -

      8 telephone calls delivered every 6 weeks

    • -

      No attempts for behavior change

  • Third control arm:

    • -

      No scheduled telephone calls

Key mechanism: health-care professional–patient relationship to promote patient activation (patient requested more-intensive lipid-lowering therapy from their physicians)
Ockene (1999) [20]Physician12 months
  • Physicians received nutrition counseling training with office support program

  • Physicians delivered patient-centered and interactive nutrition counseling assisted with office support program

  • Office support program helped the physicians to provide counseling by providing all necessary materials

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Second control arm:

    • -

      Physicians received nutrition counseling training only

  • Third control arm:

    • -

      Usual care (not being described further)

Theory: social learning theory
Fortin (2016) [21]Nurse CDPM professional3 months
  • Self-management support, patients’ education about risk assessment, and lifestyle changes assisted with printed materials

  • Collaborative care

  • The intervention group received the intervention right away after the baseline measurement

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • MI

  • Second control arm:

    • -

      Received similar intervention as intervention group but 3 months after baseline (delayed intervention)

  • Third control arm:

    • -

      Received no intervention at all for 1 year

Key mechanism: health-care professional–patient relationship to promote self-management, empowerment, and self-efficacy
Lear (2002) [22]Dietitian Exercise specialist nurse48 months
  • 6 CRPs, 6 telephone follow-ups, 3 lifestyle and risk factor counseling sessions annually and continued for 2 years

  • Patients were counseled about behavior changes and guided to develop individualized goal setting

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Return to their family physician’s care and come to the study clinic only to undergo annual outcome assessment

  • Copy of the laboratory results were sent to the participants’ family physicians

Theory: transtheoretical theory, social cognitive theory
Lin (2012) [23]Nurse Physician12 months
  • Patient education by nurses, followed by regular follow-up

  • Weekly caseload reviews by physician consultants

  • Monitoring was done by visits or telephone calls initially 2–3 times a month

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Patients were advised to consult their primary care physicians

  • Patients can self-refer or be referred for specialty services, including mental health

Theory: chronic care model
Allen (2011) [24]Nurse Community health worker12 months
  • Patient education followed by follow-ups. Follow-up frequency depends on participants’ progress

  • Progress reviewed by community health worker

  • Each follow-up session discussed individualized patients’ goals, barriers, strategies, and support to aid patients in achieving the goal

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • MI

  • Received results of baseline with the recommended goal level

  • Received a pamphlet on controlling risk factors from American Heart Association

Theory: chronic care model
Babazono (2007) [25]Dietitian Health exercise instructor Public health nurse12 months
  • Patient education about lifestyle changes

  • Follow-up support, twice a year at patient’s home

  • Health center visits for blood tests at the end of 4 and 6 months

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Received result of their blood tests and leaflets

Model: transtheoretical model
Bosworth (2018) [26]Clinical pharmacist specialist12 months
  • 12 monthly telephone calls emphasizing on medication management, training on home BP monitor, encouragement of self-monitoring of blood glucose, adverse effect monitoring, and medication adherence

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Received primary care and CVD management according to the decision of the provider

  • At baseline and 6 months, patients received generic printed educational material on ways for CVD risk reduction

Model: transtheoretical model
Byrne (2020) [27]Facilitator (health-care professional)12 months
  • 2 education sessions with follow-up support involving 44 weeks of text messages and 2 telephone calls Session 1 focused on risk assessment and role of statin, meanwhile Session 2 focused on lifestyle modification and behavioral control techniques

  • The text messages were automated and contained medication reminders as well as information and advice

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Received basic information leaflet

  • Continued treatment with their usual general practitioner for primary prevention of CVD

Theory: behavior change wheel
Ho (2014) [28]Pharmacist Primary care clinician/cardiologist12 months
  • Patient education at 1 week and 1 month visit

  • Collaborative care between pharmacist and patient’s primary care clinician and/or cardiologist

  • 2 types of voice messaging (educational and medication refill reminder calls)

  • Patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Scheduled for clinic visit after 1 year for risk assessment

Model: Wagner chronic care model, medication adherence model
Iturralde (2019) [29]Nurse Pharmacist12 months
  • Received usual care with group-based behavioral intervention

  • 3 group-based patient activation sessions. These sessions included contacts with the nurses/pharmacists by secure message, telephone calls, or video appointments

  • Development of individualized care plan

  • Live demonstration of electronic patient portals and participants’ role play

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • MI

  • Received usual care

  • Telephone follow-ups or secure messages through the electronic patient portal

Theory: chronic care model
Jarab (2012) [30]Clinical pharmacist6 months
  • Structured patient education and discussion, with provision of booklets

  • Followed by 8 weekly telephone calls by clinical pharmacists. During telephone call, prescription was reviewed and the adherence to the treatment plan was discussed

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • MI

  • Received usual care by medical and nursing staff, included patient assessment at 3 and 6 months

Theory/key mechanism: health-care professional–patient relationship to promote patient’s self-management behavior
Jiang (2007) [31]Nurse3 months
  • 12-week CRP divided into 2 phases, which were the hospital-based/family education and home-based rehabilitation care

  • Involvement of family members in the hospital-based and home-based phases

  • Follow-ups through home visits and telephone calls

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Received risk assessments together with intervention group at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months

Key mechanism: health-care professional–patient relationship in providing education to promote change in health behavior and physiological risk parameter
Maindal (2014) [32]Nurse Dietitian Physiotherapist General physician3 months
  • Received intensive treatment for behavioral change and pharmacological treatments from general practitioners. Also received invitation to take part in the intervention group

  • 12-week patient-centered health education program with 2 individual counseling interviews

  • 8 group sessions focused on action competence, CVD risk, and dietary advice according to individual goal

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Received intensive treatment for behavioral change and pharmacological treatments from general practitioners

Theory: motivation theory
Mok (2013) [33]Nurse2 months
  • 8 weeks of nurse follow-up dietary intervention, including: face-to-face consultations, take-home self-management workbook, and fortnightly telephone follow-ups

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Outpatient medical follow-up by cardiologist

  • Standard cardiac rehabilitation provided by hospital-Dietary class within 1 week after diagnosis of myocardial ischemia

Key mechanism: health-care professional–patient relationship to promote dietary change
Sol (2008) [34]Nurse12 months
  • Nursing care consisted of (1) self-efficacy promotion and (2) medical treatment of vascular risk factors. Patients were given information and tailored advice based on their conditions

  • Patients were guided for individualized goal setting for lifestyle changes. Patients underwent regular follow-up for weight, BP, and fasting lipid and glucose levels

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • Scheduled follow-up visit after 1 year for risk factor measurement

Key mechanism: health-care professional–patient relationship to promote self-efficacy and improvement in vascular risk factors
Zhang (2019) [35]Psychologist Internal medicine specialist3 months
  • 24 workshops that applied SDM; partnership establishment; and patients were supported to have individualized goals

  • Active patient involvement in care plan (SDM)

  • Individualized care plan

  • General information about cardiometabolic syndrome risk factors

  • Sent weekly text messages. No in-person contacts other than the scheduled measurements

Key mechanism: Skinner behavior intensified techniques
Daumit (2020) [36]Nurse Physician Health coach18 months
  • Weekly individualized counseling sessions for the first 6 months and at least every 2 weeks thereafter

  • Collaborative care among health coaches, nurses, and physicians

  • Had point system to reward attendance and behavior change

  • Active patient involvement in care plan

  • Individualized care plan

  • MI

  • Had assessment during scheduled follow-up at 6 months and 18 months

Theory/model: behavioral self-management concepts, social cognitive theory, solution-focused therapy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/abm-2022-0026 | Journal eISSN: 1875-855X | Journal ISSN: 1905-7415
Language: English
Page range: 214 - 236
Published on: Jun 16, 2023
Published by: Chulalongkorn University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 6 issues per year

© 2023 Farhana Fakhira Ismail, Adyani Md Redzuan, Chong Wei Wen, published by Chulalongkorn University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.