Patient-centered education in dyslipidemia management: a systematic review

Number	Keyword†
1	Dyslipidemia
2	Hyperlipidemia
3	Hypercholesterolemia
4	Hypertriglyceridemia
5	1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4
6	Patient centered (text word)
7	Patient centered education
8	Patient education
9	Patient empowerment
10	6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9 OR 10
11	6 AND 10

† Here, OR and AND are Boolean algebraic operators.

Table 2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion 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

[i] CASP, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for RCTs [16]; MI, motivational interviewing; PCE, patient-centered education; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SDM, shared decision-making.

Table 3.

Summary of studies included

Study’s first author, year	Study location	Design	Sample size	Patient demographic	Setting
Eaton (2011) [3]	New England	2-arm RCT	4,105	Patients with regular follow-up and interested in coronary heart disease risk reduction	Primary care clinic
Goyer (2012) [6]	Canada	3-arm RCT	185	Patients with at least 2 cardiovascular risk factors	Montreal Clinical Research Institute
McDermott (2012) [19]	The United States	3-arm RCT	355	Peripheral arterial disease patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg·dL⁻¹	Medical institution (university)
Ockene (1999) [20]	The United States	3-arm RCT	1,162	Patients with blood TC level in the highest 25th percentile and had a previous scheduled visit	Community health center (health maintenance organization)
Fortin (2016) [21]	Canada (North America)	3-arm RCT	664	Patients aged 18–75 years with at least 1 chronic conditions or risk factors	Primary care practice
Lear (2002) [22]	Canada (North America)	2-arm RCT	302	Patients with ischemic heart disease	Hospital
Lin (2012) [23]	The United States	2-arm RCT	214	Patients with poorly controlled diabetes and coronary heart diseases	Hospital (medical center)
Allen (2011) [24]	The United States	2-arm RCT	525	Patients with established CVD and LDL-C/BP/HbA1c exceeding target goal	Community health center
Babazono, (2007) [25]	Japan	2-arm RCT	99	Patients with high SBP/DBP/HbA1c during annual health checkup	Health center
Bosworth (2018) [26]	The United States	2-arm RCT	428	Patients with poorly controlled hypertension and/or hypercholesterolemia	Medical center/hospital
Byrne (2020) [27]	The United Kingdom	2-arm RCT	212	Patients prescribed with statins and had TC ≥5 mmol·L⁻¹	Primary care center
Ho (2014) [28]	The United States	2-arm RCT	241	Patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome as the primary reason	Medical center (hospital)
Iturralde (2019) [29]	The United States	2-arm RCT	647	Patients with ≥1 uncontrolled CVD risk factors for at least 2 years before	Kaiser Permanente (non-profit integrated healthcare delivery system)
Jarab (2012) [30]	Jordan	2-arm RCT	156	Follow-up patients with type 2 diabetes	Hospital
Jiang (2007) [31]	China	2-arm RCT	167	Patients who were first hospitalized with either angina pectoris or myocardial infarction	Hospital
Maindal (2014) [32]	Denmark	2-arm RCT	509	Patients aged 40–69 years at the time of screening and diagnosis of screening-detected type 2 diabetes	Primary care clinic
Mok (2013) [33]	Hong Kong	2-arm RCT	82	Patients diagnosed with myocardial infarction	Hospital
Sol (2008) [34]	The Netherlands	2-arm RCT	154	Referred patients with symptomatic vascular diseases	Hospital
Zhang (2019) [35]	China	2-arm RCT	62	Patients with history of cardiometabolic syndrome	Medical university-affiliated hospital
Daumit (2020) [36]	The United States	2-arm RCT	269	Patients with at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor	Community outpatient clinic

[i] BP, blood pressure; CVD, cardiovascular diseases; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin A; LDL-C, low density lipoprotein-cholesterol; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SBP, systolic blood pressure; TC, total cholesterol.

Table 4.

Summary of interventions

First author, year	Interventions by	Intervention duration	Interventions	Patient-centered elements	Control	Theories/models/key mechanism
Eaton (2011) [3]	Physician	12 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 Physician	3 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 counselor	12 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]	Physician	12 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 professional	3 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 nurse	48 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 Physician	12 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 worker	12 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 nurse	12 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 specialist	12 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/cardiologist	12 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 Pharmacist	12 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 pharmacist	6 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]	Nurse	3 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 physician	3 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]	Nurse	2 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]	Nurse	12 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 specialist	3 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 coach	18 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

[i] BP, blood pressure; CDPM, chronic disease prevention and management; CRP, cardiac rehabilitation program; CVD, cardiovascular diseases; MI, motivational interviewing; PDA, personal digital assistant; SDM, shared-decision making.

Table 5.

Summary of impact of interventions

First author	Psychosocial/cognitive	Behavioral (smoking/physical activity/diet or medication adherence)	Cholesterol level	Other cardiometabolic outcomes (BP/weight/BMI/HbA1c)	Other outcomes	Difference 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) + HbA1c 0 Waist circumference	+ Reduction in CVD risk score (Framingham Risk Score) (P< 0.005)	Difference in intervention group: 9.0 mg·dL⁻¹ Difference 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⁻¹ Difference 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⁻¹ Difference 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-efficacy 0 Perceived stress	0 Smoking status 0 Physical activity	0 TC 0 LDL 0 HDL 0 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⁻¹ Difference 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 intake	0 TC 0 LDL 0 TG 0 HDL	0 BMI 0 BP 0 HbA1c	–	Difference in intervention group: 1.4 mg·dL⁻¹ Difference in control group (usual care): increment of 0.1 mg·dL⁻¹
Bosworth [26]	–	–	+ TC (95% CI, P= 0.03) 0 LDL 0 HDL (95% CI, P= 0.08)	0 SBP (P= 0.34) 0 DBP 0 HbA1c (95% CI) (P= 0.72)	–	Difference in intervention group: 9.7 mg·dL⁻¹ Difference 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⁻¹ Difference 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⁻¹ Difference 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⁻¹ Difference 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⁻¹ Difference 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 TC 0 TG + HDL (P= 0.001)	–	–	Difference in intervention group: no difference Difference 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 activity 0 Smoking status	+TG (P< 0.001)	+ SBP (P< 0.001) + Waist circumference (P< 0.001)	–	TG: difference in intervention group: 14.4 mg·dL⁻¹ Difference in control group (usual care): increase of 3.6 mg·dL⁻¹
Daumit [36]	–	+ Smoking status (P= 0.004, 95% CI)	0 TC 0 HDL 0 LDL	0 SBP	+ Reduction in 10-year Framingham risk score (P= 0.02, 95% CI)	Difference in intervention group: 8.2 mg·dL⁻¹ Difference in control group (usual care): 3.7 mg·dL⁻¹

[i] + = Significant improvement (P< 0.05) compared with the control group.

[ii] 0 = No significant effect of the intervention (P≥ 0.05) compared with the control group.

[iii] − = No result reported.

[iv] 95% CI, 95% confidence interval reported in the article; BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CI, confidence interval; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin A; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; OR, odds ratio; PTCA, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RR, relative risk; SBP, systolic blood pressure; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride.

Table 6.

Criteria assessments for studies included

Study’s first author	Does the study describe PCE?	1. Clearly focused research question	2. 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 outcome	6. 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., reported	8. 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]	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Goyer [6]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
McDermott [19]	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Ockene [20]	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Fortin [21]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Lear [22]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Lin [23]	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Allen [24]	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Babazono [25]	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Bosworth [26]	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Byrne [27]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Ho [28]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Iturralde [29]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Jarab [30]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Jiang [31]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Maindal [32]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Mok [33]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Sol [34]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Zhang [35]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Daumit [36]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1

[i] CI, confidence interval; PCE, patient-centered education; 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.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/abm-2022-0026 | Journal eISSN: 1875-855X | Journal ISSN: 1905-7415

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 214 - 236

Published on: Jun 16, 2023

Published by: Chulalongkorn University

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

cardiovascular diseases,

disease management,

patient education as topic,

patient participation,

pharmacists,

practice patterns

Related subjects:

Medicine,

Assistive professions, nursing,

Basic medical science,

Basic medical science, other,

Clinical medicine,

Clinical medicine, other

© 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.

Volume 16 (2022): Issue 5 (October 2022)

Patient-centered education in dyslipidemia management: a systematic review

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Figure 1.

Paradigm

My account