5. Outcome category: self‐efficacy.
| Study ID | Health topic | Measure | No. of participants | Time point(s) |
Intervention arm Mean (SD)* |
Control arm Mean (SD)* |
Notes |
| 1 Culturally and literacy adapted self‐management programme vs no health literacy intervention | |||||||
| Rosal 2011 | Diabetes type 2 | Self‐efficacy in diabetes management; LSESLD (17 items, 17 to 68, higher score is better) |
IG: 124 CG: 128 |
4 months after randomisation | 0.448 (0.362 to 0.534) | 0.132 (0.040 to 0.219) | Mean (range) is reported P < 0.001 For meta‐analysis, the final SD was substituted with the reported baseline SD (Analysis 1.9) |
| 12 months after randomisation | 0.448 (0.0348 to 0.548) | 0.213 (0.113 to 0.313) | P = 0.001 | ||||
| van Servellen 2005 | HIV | Self‐efficacy for HIV medication adherence; adherence behaviours baseline questionnaire (item from the ACTG) (1 question on certainty to take medications correctly, 0 = not at all sure to 3 = extremely sure, higher scores are better) |
IG: 41 CG: 40 |
At 6 weeks after randomisation | 0.27 (0.92) | ‐0.08 (0.92) | Intervention group: P ≥ 0.10 Change scores are reported |
| IG: 34 CG: 35 |
At 6 months after randomisation | 0.12 (0.95) | ‐0.06 (0.59) | Change scores are reported | |||
| 2 Culturally and literacy adapted self‐management programme vs written information on the same topic | |||||||
| Kim 2009 | Diabetes type 2 | Adapted Stanford Chronic Disease Self‐Efficacy Scale (8 x 10‐point Likert items, 0 to 80, 1 = not confident at all, 4 = very confident, higher scores are better) |
IG: 40 CG: 39 |
18 weeks after randomisation | 8.7 (11.4) | 2.6 (15.0) | Change scores are reported P = 0.02 |
| 30 weeks after randomisation | 6.6 (14.4) | ‐0.9 (15.1) | Change scores are reported P = 0.01 |
||||
| Kim 2014 | HBP | Self‐efficacy in managing high blood pressure; questionnaire adapted from the HBP belief scale (8 items, 4‐point Likert scale, 1 = not confident at all, 4 = very confident, 8 to 32, higher scores are better) |
IG: 184 CG: 185 |
12 months after randomisation (immediately post‐intervention) | 26.6 (3.2) | 25.4 (3.7) | Cluster‐RCT; data have been re‐analysed for meta‐analysis using the appropriate unit of analysis with the use of the ICC reported by Han 2017 (see Analysis 2.23; Analysis 2.25) Group x time P = 0.001 (at 12 months) |
| 18 months after randomisation (6‐month follow‐up) | 25.9 (3.7) | 26.1 (3.9) | |||||
| Kim 2020 | Diabetes type 2 | Adapted Stanford Chronic Disease Self‐Efficacy Scale (8 items, 10‐point Likert scale, 0 to 80, 1 = not confident at all, 4 = very confident, higher scores are better) |
IG: 105 CG: 104 |
12 months after randomisation | 58.6 (SE 1.2) | 46.5 (SE 1.6) | P < 0.001 |
| Rosal 2005 | Diabetes type 2 | IMDSES (26 items, 4‐point Likert‐scale, 1 = "low confidence" to 4 = "high confidence", 26 to 104, higher scores are better) |
IG: 15 CG: 10 |
3 months after randomisation (immediately post‐intervention) | Self‐efficacy for
(1) Diet 0.03 (0.4) (2) Exercise 0.11 (0.9) (3) Self‐monitoring 0.3 (1.0) (4) Oral glycaemic agents ‐0.1 (0.3) (5) Insulin ‐0.14 (1.3) |
Self‐efficacy for
(1) Diet 0.44 (0.3)* (2) Exercise 0.24 (0.6) (3) Self‐monitoring –0.3 (0.7) (4) Oral glycaemic agents 0 (0) (5) Insulin –0.2 (0.5) |
Change scores are reported No composite score reported. For meta‐analysis, a single score was calculated (see Analysis 2.23) |
| 6 months after randomisation (4.5 months post‐intervention) | (1) Diet 0.10 (0.6) (2) Exercise 0.04 (0.6) (3) Self‐monitoring 0.30 (1.0) (4) Oral glycaemic agents 0.04 (0.1) (5) Insulin 0.01 (0.6) |
(1) Diet 0.13 (0.4) (2)Exercise –0.14 (1.0) (3) Self‐monitoring –0.07 (0.7) (4) Oral glycaemic agents –0.25 (0.5) (5) Insulin –0.27 (0.4) |
|||||
| 3 Culturally adapted health literacy skills building course vs unrelated health literacy intervention | |||||||
| Elder 1998 | Nutrition/cardiovascular health | Self‐efficacy to change one's diet (5 items, 1 to 3, higher score is better) |
IG: 133 CG: 157 |
3 months post‐intervention | 2.29 | 2.25 | No difference Cluster‐RCT; unadjusted values are reported |
| At 6‐month follow‐up | 2.30 | 2.27 | |||||
| 5 Culturally and literacy adapted audio‐/visual education without personal feedback vs no health literacy intervention | |||||||
| Hernandez 2013 | Depression | Self‐efficacy to identify the need for treatment scale (3 items, 5‐point Likert scale, 1 = not sure, 5 = very sure, 0 to 15, higher scores are better) |
IG: 70 CG: 63 |
Immediately post‐intervention | 3.64 (3.36) | 0.13 (2.35) | Change scores are reported P < 0.001 |
| 6 Culturally and literacy adapted audio‐/visual education without personal feedback vs written information on the same topic | |||||||
| Gwede 2019 | Colorectal cancer | Self‐efficacy for screening using FIT (6 items, 6 to 30, higher scores indicating higher levels of self‐efficacy) |
IG: 27 CG: 36 |
At 3‐month follow‐up | 29.7 (1.0) | 29.5 (1.3) | P = 0.039 |
| Poureslami 2016b (4‐arms, COPD) | COPD | COPD Self‐Efficacy Scale (short version) (5 items, 5‐point Likert‐scale, 1 = not at all confident to 5 = totally confident, higher scores are better) |
Group 3: 29 Group 4: 14 |
3 months post‐intervention | (1) Prepared to manage COPD Group 3 vs Group 4 0.87 (0.04 to 1.71), P < 0.05 (2) Perception of being informed about COPD Group 3 vs Group 4 0.12 (‐0.65 to 0.90), P < 0.05 (3) Remain calm when facing a worsening of COPD Group 3 vs Group 4 0.28 (‐0.54 to 1.11), N/S (4) Ability to achieve goals in managing COPD Group 3 vs Group 4 1.05 (0.08 to 2.02), P < 0.05 (5) Ability to self‐manage COPD symptoms Group 3 vs Group 4 0.38 (‐1.18 to 0.41), P < 0.05 |
No composite score reported MD (95% CI), P values are reported No difference between female and male participants |
|
| Payán 2020 | Breast cancer | Self‐efficacy in accessing breast cancer‐related advice or information (1 item, "Overall, how confident are you that you could get advice or information about breast cancer if you needed it?”, 5‐point Likert scale 1 = "completely confident" to 3 = "not confident at all" (3), higher scores are better) |
IG 1: 79 IG 2: 79 CG: 82 |
Immediately post‐intervention | IG 1: 0.87 (0.34) IG 2: 0.89 (0.32) IG 1, 2: 0.88 (0.33) |
0.80 (0.40) | Final values were obtained from study authors IG 1 and IG 2 were combined to create a single pairwise comparison |
| IG 1: 67 IG 2: 61 CG: 65 |
At 3‐month follow‐up | IG 1: 0.67 (0.47) IG 2: 0.88 (0.33) IG 1, 2: 0.77 (0.42) |
0.75 (0.44) | ||||
| Unger 2013 | Depression | Self‐efficacy to identify depression (2 items, 10‐point Likert scale, 1 = "not at all confident" to 10 = "very confident", higher scores are better) |
IG: 69 CG: 70 |
Immediately post‐intervention | t = 4.54, P < 0.05 | t = 3.16, P < 0.05 | — |
| At 1‐month follow‐up | t = 3.31, P < 0.05 | t = 3.00, P < 0.05 | "[T]he data collectors reported that several students shared their photonovel with students in the text pamphlet group after the posttest." (Unger 2013, p. 405). | ||||
| Valdez 2018 | Cervical cancer/Pap testing | Self‐efficacy regarding Pap smear (1 item, "Can get a pap smear if needed", yes/no) |
IG: 383 CG: 344 |
6‐month follow‐up | n: 356, 93 % | n: 314, 91 % | P = 0.40 |
* Unadjusted mean (SD) if not otherwise reported.
ACTG: Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group; CG: control group; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; FIT: faecal immunochemical test; HBP: high blood pressure; IG: intervention group; IMDSES: Insulin Management Self‐Efficacy Scale; LSESLD: Lifestyle Self‐Efficacy Scale for Latinos with Diabetes; MD (95% CI): mean difference (95% confidence interval); N/S: not significant; SD: standard deviation; SE: standard error ; Pap: Papanicolaou