Skip to main content
Download PDF

A health promotion model-based intervention to enhance treatment adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1943 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The present study aimed to determine the effect of an intervention based on Pender’s health promotion model (HPM) on treatment adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods

The present quasi-experimental study with a 3-month follow-up was conducted in Bandar Abbas, a city in the south of Iran in 2023. The intervention group (IG) with a total number of 95 T2D patients was selected from Hormuz diabetes clinic and the control group (CG) with 95 T2D patients was selected from comprehensive health centers through a clustering sampling method. The educational intervention was implemented in 10 sessions to improve patients’ treatment adherence. The teaching methods in training sessions were lectures, joint discussions, Q&A, role-play and peer training. The participants were evaluated using a researcher-made questionnaire including the constructs of Pender’s HPM about T2D treatment adherence, hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), and BMI. Independent-samples t-test, paired-samples t-test, covariance analysis and stepwise regression analysis were used. Data analysis was done in SPSS 26.

Findings

Three months after the intervention, in comparison to the CG, the mean and standard deviation of treatment adherence benefits (p = 0.002), treatment adherence self-efficacy (p = 0.010), treatment adherence related affect (p = 0.001), interpersonal influences (p = 0.012), commitment to plan of action (p < 0.001), treatment adherence behavior (p = 0.022), treatment adherence experiences (p = 0.001) was higher in the IG. The mean and standard deviation of situational influences (p < 0.001), immediate competing demands and preferences (p = 0.018) were lower than the CG. The results obtained from the analysis of covariance proved the effectiveness of the intervention in the constructs of Pender’s HPM and HbA1C in participants of the IG (p < 0.001). The regression analysis showed, after the intervention, for every 1 unit of change in commitment to behavior planning, action related affect and perceived self-efficacy, compared to before the intervention, there were 0.22 units, 0.16 units and 0.26 units of change in the behavior score in the IG.

Conclusion

The findings proved the effectiveness of the educational intervention in improving the constructs in Pender’s HPM and the blood sugar level of T2D patients. As the results of the educational intervention showed, the use of a suitable educational approach as well as the development of appropriate educational content for the target population can significantly improve the treatment adherence behavior.

Trial registration

This study is registered on the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20211228053558N1: https://www.irct.ir/trial/61741) and first release date of 17th March 2022.

Peer Review reports

Background

Among the most common chronic diseases in the world, diabetes is a continuous global threat to human health and global medical care [1]. As reported by the International Diabetes Federation, 10.5% of the adult population (20–79 years) on a global scale suffer from diabetes, and about half of them are not aware of living with this condition [2]. It is estimated that the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regions including Iran will face the highest prevalence of diabetes in 2045, as the prevalence rate is predicted to reach a possible rate of 19.3% [2]. The prevalence of diabetes in Iran since the first national survey published in 1999 and despite the efforts and strategies to reduce the disease burden, has increased steadily and has become a national public health concern [3]. Diabetes is one of the 10 main causes of mortality in the world and Iran [4, 5]. The prevalence of diabetes and the total cases of diabetes in adults in Iran are estimated at 9.5% and 5,450,300 individuals, respectively [6].

T2D, which accounts for approximately 90% of all cases of diabetes, is associated with a variety of modifiable risk factors (e.g., unhealthy diet, obesity, physical inactivity, smoking and alcohol consumption) and non-modifiable factors (e.g., age, genetic factors and demographic factors) [7,8,9]. T2D patients are faced with a chronic disease that can lead to many complications and mortality [10]. The regular use of medicine, adopting a healthy lifestyle such as healthy eating, physical activity and psychosocial care are important in controlling T2D [11].

Adherence to treatment in diabetes is an important factor in achieving good diabetes control and preventing mortality [12]; nevertheless, evidence shows that treatment adherence is inadequate among these patients [13, 14]. Treatment adherence in patients with T2D has been estimated at 68% in the United States of America [15], 34% in India [16], 50% in Japan [17] and 29% in Ethiopia [18]. Iranian researchers have also drawn attention to the low adherence to diabetes treatment and found this rate to be 17% [19], 31% [20] and 40% [21] in a body of research.

Successful management of diabetes depends not only on drug therapy, but also on self-management such as self-care measures, balanced diet, physical activity, weight control, and self-monitoring of blood glucose [22]. Therefore, training and empowering patients is of a great importance [23]. Since treatment adherence is a complex behavior, health behavior theories and models can help researchers develop intervention programs [24]. Pender’s health promotion model (HPM) is a model to explain healthy behavior with a focus on the role of experience in shaping behavior. This model enables health experts to persuade people to adopt health-promoting behaviors using a psychosocial process [25]. This model, which is used as a mediational model in the present study, provides a framework for a deeper understanding of factors that lead to poor treatment adherence [26, 27]. Through examining these factors within the framework of Pender’s model, researchers can identify specific areas such as perceived barriers, increasing self-efficacy, and promoting perceived benefits to enrich interventions to improve treatment adherence [26, 27].

HPM includes three categories of factors, individual characteristics and experiences, behavior specific cognition and affect, behavioral outcomes (Fig. 1). Behavior-specific cognition and affect has modifiable constructs, including the perceived benefits of action, perceived barriers to action, perceived self-efficacy, activity related affect, interpersonal influences, and situational influences, that can lead to the adoption of (or a lack thereof) health promotion behaviors and resistance to immediate competing demands and preferences.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Pender’s health promotion model (HPM)

Full size image

The prevalence of T2D is related to people’s lifestyle [28]. Unhealthy lifestyle marked by inactivity and unhealthy diet is common in southern Iran [29], which can affect the high prevalence of diabetes in this region [30] and T2D patients’ treatment adherence. There has been a dearth of research based on theoretical frameworks to promote adherence to type 2 diabetes treatment [31, 32]. Educational interventions based on Pender’s health promotion model have been carried out to adhere to treatment for other diseases [26, 33, 34]. Interventions based on this model in patients with T2D usually do not consider the set of treatment adherence behaviors together and only focus on one of these behaviors of regular medication consumption, physical activity, or diet [35, 36]. In this study, Pender’s HPM was used because the model constructs embrace personal, cognitive, affective and situational factors, all affecting the performance of healthy behaviors, especially adherence to T2D treatment [26, 34, 37]. Therefore, the present study aimed to design and implement an intervention based on Pender’s HPM to improve treatment adherence (medication, diet and physical activity) of T2D patients.

Materials and methods

Design and participants

The present quasi-experimental intervention was conducted with an intervention group (IG) and a control group (CG) on T2D patients in Bandar Abbas in January-March, 2023. This research had a pre-test, post-test design with a three-month follow-up, and aimed to improve treatment adherence in T2D patients using Pender’s HPM.

The research population consisted of T2D patients in Bandar Abbas. The intervention group was selected from Hormuz Diabetes Clinic, and the control group was selected from comprehensive health centers in the same city. The intervention was set in Hormuz Diabetes Clinic of Shahid Mohammadi Hospital, the greatest general hospital in Hormozgan province located in the south of Iran. The clinic is known as the largest diabetes clinic of the province.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: willingness to participate in research, having a T2D medical record in Hormuz Diabetes Clinic (for IG) and comprehensive health centers (for CG), living in Bandar Abbas city, completion of an informed consent form to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria: failure to participate in training sessions regularly (absence of more than 2 sessions), failure to visit the Hormoz diabetes clinic, absence in the post-test.

Sample size and intervention sampling method

According to the existing literature [38], the combined standard deviation was estimated at 29.7, with an error of 5%, the test power of 80%. The difference between the treatment adherence score of the IG and CG was estimated at 13.5, and the sample size was estimated at be 76.

$$\:n=\frac{2{\left({z}_{1-\frac{a}{2}}^{2}+{z}_{1-\beta\:}\right)}^{2}{s}_{p}^{2}}{{({\mu\:}_{1}-{\mu\:}_{2})}^{2}}=76$$

To avoid the potential attrition, 25% was added to the above sample size and the final sample size was estimated at 95 in each of the two research groups. One participant from the IG did not complete the questionnaire.

The sampling was clustering in type. Hormuz diabetes clinic was considered as the intervention cluster and three comprehensive urban health centers as the control cluster (32 patients from Seyed Mozaffar clinic, 31 from Tawhid clinic and 32 from Seyed al-Shohda clinic). The latter was who not by any means related to the IG. For sampling in the IG, patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study through a systematic sampling based on the recorded case number. The same process followed for the CG using a list of individuals with diabetes recorded in the comprehensive health center registration system. In three months after the intervention, 91 patients in the IG and 80 in the CG completed the questionnaires (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Sampling flowchart

Full size image

Instrumentation

The measurement instruments used in this study were:

  1. 1.

    Questionnaire: Demographic variables and the constructs of Pender’s HPM, treatment adherence experiences and behavior-related questions.

  2. 2.

    Hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C).

  3. 3.

    BMI.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed in a qualitative study [39].

The first part of the questionnaire enquired about demographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, education level, employment status, economic status and history of diabetes, medication type and smoking.

The second part of the questionnaire enquired about the constructs of Pender’s HPM, treatment adherence experiences (derived from the qualitative study) and behavior related questions. It includes a total number of 65 questions, to be rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, no idea = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1), as follows:

Constructs of Pender’s HPM: “Perceived benefits of action” was rated along with 6 questions with a range of scores of 6 and 30. “Perceived barriers to action” was rated along with 7 questions that were reversely scored in a range of 7 to 35. “Perceived self-efficacy” included 8 questions, with a range of scores of 8 to 40. “Activity related affects” contained 7 questions, with a range of scores of 7 to 35. The last three questions of this construct were reversely scored to examine negative affect. “Interpersonal influences” was rated along with 7 questions, with a score range of 7 to 35. “Situational influences” consisted of 5 questions that were reversely scored with a score range of 5 to 25. “Immediate competing demands and preferences” was rated along with 7 questions that were reversely scored with a score range of 7 to 35. “Commitment to a plan of action” was rated along with 8 questions, with a score range of 8 to 40.

Treatment adherence experiences: “Treatment adherence experiences” included both personal experiences and others’ experiences with 5 questions, with a score range of 5 to 25.

Behavior: “Treatment adherence behavior” was measured along with 5 questions, with a range of scores of 5 to 25.

Quantitative content validity was checked using content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI). The questionnaire was provided to 10 health education and health promotion specialists, internal medicine specialists, and Endocrinology & Metabolism experts. Moreover, to test the reliability of this instrument, test-retest and Cronbach’s alpha were used for each dimension of the questionnaire and the whole questionnaire. The test and re-test were conducted in the presence of 22 T2D patients visiting medical centers in Bandar Abbas to treat the disease. Two weeks after completing the first phase of the questionnaire, the patients were asked to answer the questions again. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the whole questionnaire was estimated at 0.924, which shows the acceptable reliability of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed before and 3 months after the intervention.

HBA1C

In the present study, blood sugar management was evaluated using the HBA1C test, known as a measure of the perceived benefits of glucose reduction in trials [40]. HbA1c was measured using whole blood samples via an enzymatic method using Biorex kits on an automatic biochemistry analyzer (Mindray BS-800). The test was administered before the intervention and three months after the intervention ended.

BMI

Participants’ weight was measured to estimate BMI before and three months after the intervention. Weight was measured while subjects were minimally clothed without shoes using a digital scale with a sensitivity of 100 g, and height was measured in a standing position, without shoes, using a non-expandable tape measure with an accuracy of 0.5 cm.

Data Collection

The data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire, HbA1C and BMI before and three months after the intervention from both the CG and IG (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Timeline of intervention sessions and assessments. S* Session once a week, M** Month

Full size image

Before collecting the data, the necessary explanations about the objectives and procedure of study were provided to those who signed the consent form to participate in this research. Questionnaires were completed online in PorsLine. The researcher’s contact number was included in the first page. For those unable to complete the questionnaire for not having a smartphone, poor eye sight, or illiteracy, the content of the questionnaire was read out loud by the researcher and completed as they suggested. The researcher tried to reduce the drop-out rate by continuous follow-ups through phone calls, messages and attendance when people visit the clinic; however, a number of people were excluded from the study at different phases of study.

Development of educational intervention

The educational intervention was made at two levels, individual and interpersonal. At the individual level, the intervention was made on T2D patients. At first, the patients were divided into four groups. Group-based training sessions were held in the afternoon hours in a room on the ground floor of Hormoz Clinic, which had adequate light and silence. The classroom was arranged in a U shape [41, 42]. The researcher stood in front of the audience as a speaker. This arrangement, which is mostly used for press conferences, training classes and collaboration meetings or brainstorming workshops, encourages people to participate and interact with each other. Therefore, the classes proceeded in a completely cooperative and friendly manner.

The intervention team consisted of a Ph.D. student of health education and health promotion, two experts in health education and health promotion, an internist and a master of nutrition. The team developed the content of intervention based on the data obtained from the pre-test and using the latest available resources, especially the American Diabetes Association. Two patients (1 male and 1 female) among T2D patients, found with a good treatment adherence, were present in the training sessions as role models. These role models viewed their presence and sharing of lived experiences was motivating and promising for treatment adherence.

The educational intervention was held for 2 months from January 21, 2022 to March 19, 2022. The sessions were held on a weekly basis, and the researcher allocated one day a week to patients who failed to attend the previous training session in their group for any reason, and held a make-up training session for them. The sessions were held as collaborative group discussion and Q&A. The self-efficacy related sessions on, for example, insulin consumption or blood sugar measurement, a blood sugar test device was used along with role play. It included a follow-up of treatment adherence behavior as a daily self-assessment program including date, time and content of breakfast, lunch and dinner, time and content of exercise, fasting sugar level and foot care instructed the next session. At the beginning of each session, the researcher and the participants discussed the previous session for approximately 5 min, and participants’ comments and criticisms were used to improve other sessions. In the final session, each participant was given two stickers “I adhere to diabetes treatment!” and “I am a healthy individual with diabetes.“. The participants were asked to stick the corresponding stickers to their home kitchen or to their work station. The educational media used during the intervention consisted of educational pamphlets, insulin poster (A4 size) and educational video (on insulin consumption and hypoglycemia). The duration of sessions was approximately 60–90 min; their length depended on the topic and participants’ reception. Some sessions took up to 120 min. Finally, 10 sessions were developed for intervention including eight face-to-face sessions and two online sessions (Table 1).

Table 1 Content of intervention sessions
Full size table

The latter was held as an online group meeting with all participants present in maximum 15 min. In this group, useful short messages on treatment adherence were also included. Some participants did not have smartphones, were illiterate, or failed to attend online classes due to poor eye sight. Therefore, their companion, a family member, cooperated in solving this problem and his/her contact number was added to the group. Besides, two walking sessions were planned in March for those who participated in each session as they preferred. At the interpersonal level, the companions in treatment adherence were present in two sessions. They were also invited to participate in the walking sessions. The researcher’s contact number and information were provided to the participants so that they could contact him if they had any queries. If any of the participants suffered from T2D complications, they were sent to the relevant specialist at Hormuz specialized and sub-specialized clinic, and the researcher made an appointment for them in the clinic. The data collection was simultaneous for both CG and IG. After the study, to adhere to research ethics and to acknowledge the CG participants’ involvement, they were also given the educational intervention materials. The CG did not have any training until the intervention ended.

Data analysis

The data analysis was done in SPSS 26, using descriptive statistics, mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum scores for interval variables and frequency and percentage for non-interval variables. Number 7 was set as the cutoff point for HBA1C according to Wulandari’s study [43]. Independent-samples t-test, paired-samples t-test, covariance analysis and stepwise regression analysis were used to check the effectiveness of behavior change intervention and Pender’s health promotion model constructs.

Ethical considerations

To conduct the present research, the required permissions were gained from the Research Ethics Committee of Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences. This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences with the ethical code of 377 IR.HUMS.REC.1400. To ensure voluntary participation in the study, informed consent forms were signed by the participants. The participants were assured that participation in the study was completely voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study any time at any phase of data collection if they did not wish to cooperate. The participants were assured that they could be informed of the findings of study if they wished. After the research was done, the educational materials and content were provided to the CG.

Results

The majority of participants were female (2.70% in the intervention, 68.4% in the control), married (2.86% in the intervention, 84.2% in the control) and held a diploma (28.7% in the intervention, 23.2% in the control). The mean and standard deviation of participants’ age was 10.15 ± 54.93 in the IG and 11.20 ± 52.55 in the CG. The history of diabetes was 5.92 ± 10.6 for the IG and 5.80 ± 9.95 for the IG. Other demographic features of research participants in each group are summarized in Table 2. No significant difference was found in all contextual variables investigated in the IG and CG.

Table 2 Comparison of research participants’ demographic information
Full size table

The scores obtained in the IG and CG in the time span before the intervention and 3 months after the intervention are shown in Table 2. The between-group differences in the mean scores of all constructs except for perceived barriers were statistically significant after the intervention. Concerning Hba1c and BMI after the intervention, there was no significant difference between the IG and CG. Comparison of the mean difference between the IG and CG showed that after the intervention in the IG, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of all constructs except the perceived affects, behavior and BMI. In the CG, after the intervention, the mean scores of situational influences and immediate preferences were significant. (Table 3)

Table 3 Comparison of mean scores of Pender’s constructs before intervention and 3 months after intervention in the control group and intervention group
Full size table

According to Fig. 4, before the intervention, 13.8% of the IG had HbA1C less than 7. After the educational intervention, 25.3% of this group had HbA1C less than 7, and those with HbA1C greater than or equal to 7 decreased from 86.2 to 74.7% (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

A1C changes in two groups before and after the intervention

Full size image

To adjust for the effect of pre-test on the effectiveness of educational intervention on the post-test variables, covariance analysis was used. Between the adjusted mean scores of all constructs and also A1C, a statistically significant difference was observed between the IG and CG after the educational intervention. Therefore, the obtained results show the effect of intervention on variables of interest in participants of IG. Yet, concerning BMI, this difference was not statistically significant (Table 4).

Table 4 The results of covariance analysis of the effect of intervention on mean scores of Pender’s health promotion model constructs, behavioral experiences and A1C after intervention with pre-test effect controlled
Full size table

The results of multiple linear regression analysis using the difference in scores of behavior and constructs after intervention (in the posttest) compared to before the intervention (the pretest) in IG are summarized in Table 5. For each unit of change in commitment to plan of action in the posttest compared to the pretest, there was a change of 0.22 units in the behavior score of IG. Also, for each unit of change in treatment adherence related affect in the posttest compared to the pretest, there was a change of 0.16 units in the behavior score in the IG. Similarly, for each unit of change in perceived self-efficacy in the posttest compared to the pretest, 0.26 units of change occurred in the behavior score of IG.

Table 5 The results of step-by-step regression analysis of changes in the intervention group
Full size table

Discussion

The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of educational intervention based on Pender’s HPM on treatment adherence of T2D patients. As the results showed, after the intervention, there was a significant difference in treatment adherence behavior of the two groups. Moreover, the results of HbA1C were significantly different after the intervention in the IG. In the IG, there was a significant increase in perceived benefits, perceived self-efficacy, interpersonal influences, commitment to a plan of action, and treatment adherence experiences. There was a significant decrease in immediate competing demands and preferences and situational influences. There was a significant difference between the two groups. There was a significant difference between the two groups in the construct of treatment adherence related affects in the posttest. There was no significant difference in the IG before and after the intervention. There was no significant difference between the two groups in perceived barriers after the intervention, but there was a significant decrease in the IG before and after the intervention.

As the analysis showed, perceived benefits increased significantly in the IG, and there was also a significant difference between the IG and CG. The educational intervention managed to improve participants’ perceived benefits of treatment adherence behaviors. The higher the outcomes and benefits of treatment adherence, the more likely the willingness to perform the behavior increases. In several studies consistent with these findings, perceived benefits improved significantly after theory-based interventions such as Pender’s health promotion models, the health action process approach, and health belief [31, 32, 44,45,46]. Educating patients on benefits of physical activity, healthy diet and medications can facilitate the continuous performance of these behaviors. We suggest psychological-educational and cognitive-behavioral interventions be made for patients with a negative perception of the disease and low health literacy. The focus of interventions should be on individual’s perception of the disease and benefits of treatment adherence.

According to the present findings, the educational intervention managed to reduce participants’ perceived barriers scores in the IG. This result indicates that the participants were able to overcome the barriers after the educational intervention. These barriers include a wide range of physical, financial, access, and daily concerns that prevent us from treatment adherence behaviors. Similarly, the role of perceived barriers matters as non-adherence to treatment may ultimately delay the diagnosis of diabetes outcomes and have preventable consequences or premature death. Ranjbaran et al. contended that barriers to adherence to diet and medication intake were significantly reduced one month and six months after intervention in T2D patients [31]. Moreover, Shabibi et al. conducted an educational intervention based on the health belief model (HBM) and observed a significant change in the perceived barriers scores of the IG [32]. The high level of perceived barriers prevents one from adhering to treatment, puts health at risk and increases health care costs for both patients and society [47]. If the patient understands the essentiality of treatment, one’s motivation and willingness to remove barriers to self-care behaviors and adherence increase.

The perceived self-efficacy construct increased significantly in the IG, and there was a significant difference in the score of this construct between the IG and CG. For each unit of change in the perceived self-efficacy construct after the intervention compared to before the intervention, there was a change of 0.262 units in the behavior score of IG. It seems that the educational intervention in the present study based on Pender’s health promotion model and solutions such as role model, role play, guided exercises and goal setting managed to increase belief in one’s ability to correctly implement the behaviors of treatment adherence, healthy nutrition and physical activity. Ranjbaran et al. and Mohsenipouya et al. argued that self-efficacy significantly improved after the intervention [31, 46]. In Shabibi et al.‘s study, the educational intervention led to a change in the perceived self-efficacy scores of the IG [32]. Improving the self-efficacy of IG managed to facilitate their treatment adherence behavior. Perceived low efficacy to control a disease may lead to ineffectiveness in adopting healthy behavior or cognitive and emotional changes in representation of that disease. Higher control is associated with less anxiety, less avoidance of coping strategies and positive evaluation [48]. People adequate self-efficacy have good behavioral consistency to adhere to treatment.

The construct of interpersonal influences in the IG increased significantly, and there was also a significant difference in the score of interpersonal influences between the IG and CG. García-Pérez et al. maintained that in T2D patients, poor treatment adherence was significantly associated with a lack of family or social support [49]. In this study, we tried to encourage other companions to contribute more to patients’ treatment adherence by including family members in instructional sessions and sharing experiences of successful peers. A body of research suggested the effectiveness of educational interventions based on Pender’s HPM in interpersonal influences [36, 46, 50, 51]. However, Mohammadipour et al. could not significantly improve the scores of this construct [52], and these divergent findings can be due to different demographic characteristics of participants and interventions, because Mohammadipour’s research was conducted on T2D patients with a history of heart disease. Moreover, compared to the present study, it used a smaller sample size. Human communication plays an important role in adherence to chronic disease treatment. Clinicians, administrators, and policymakers should consider interpersonal interventions not only for their intrinsic value, but also for their potential to affect population health, patient experience, cost, and provider experience [53]. Lee et al. contended that patient-physician communication, especially information communication, had the potential to improve the patient therapeutic process through changes in medication adherence [54].

There was a significant decrease in the construct of situational influences in the IG, and there was a significant between-group difference in this score between the two groups. According to Pender’s health promotion model, each individual has a multidimensional whole that interacts with interpersonal and physical environments and plays an effective role in health promotion [46, 55, 56]. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the role that the individual plays in family, workplace and society, as well as the physical environment and cultural characteristics of one’s place of residence in treatment adherence. In this study, the researcher tried to teach patients skills according to the above-mentioned characteristics so that they could better adhere to treatment. Other researchers also reported the effectiveness of intervention based on Pender’s HPM in situational influences [36, 51]. However, in the study of Goodarzi et al., this change of score was not statistically significant, which may be due to the participants’ pregnancy and their special conditions [57].

As the results showed, a significant increase was found in commitment to a plan of action in the IG in the posttest. There was also a significant difference between the IG and CG in terms of commitment to a plan of action. For one unit of change in commitment to plan of action after the intervention compared to before the intervention, there was a change of 0.222 units in the behavior score of the IG. Other researchers also reported the effectiveness of intervention based on Pender’s HPM in commitment to the plan of action [36, 46, 51, 57]. To increase this construct, it is not enough to emphasize this construct only; thus, other constructs of Pender’s model should also be taken into account. Conducting the educational intervention helped increase participants’ intention to set a goal to initiate and maintain adherence to drug therapy, physical activity, and nutrition. When health professionals seek to bring about behavioral changes in a group of people, targeting is usually included as part of their health promotion interventions [58, 59]. It seems that theory-based interventions, especially interventions based on Pender’s HPM, have been effective in improving commitment to a plan of action.

The results revealed a significant decrease in immediate competing demands and preferences in the IG. There was also a significant difference in the mean score of this construct between the two groups. Through increasing T2D patients’ ability of to manage daily life preferences and increasing control over unforeseen events, the educational intervention managed to help improve their decision-making in challenging situations. In line with the present findings, Rooh al-Amini et al. were able to have a significant effect on the score of IG in terms of immediate competing demands and preferences in their educational intervention [36]. In the study of Goodarzi et al., the IG had a significant decrease in the score of this construct after the educational intervention [57]. According to Pender’s HPM, competing demands may reduce commitment to a care plan, especially when the demands are urgent and overwhelming. However, if the health measures are attractive and accepted by the individual, commitment to treatment adherence behavior is reinforced [56]. Thus, while immediate competing demands and preferences can be important determinants of treatment adherence, there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of treatment adherence interventions to improve this construct.

In the present study, there was a significant increase in positive experiences of treatment adherence in the IG. There was also a significant difference between the IG and CG in the mean score of experiences. Arguably, these experiences gained by the individual and others have, on the one hand led to an increase in the individual’s self-efficacy, and on the other hand, to improve their perceived benefits because. For example, someone who has had a positive experience of regular medication consumption is now adequately aware of its benefits. More treatment adherence among patients with a longer history of the disease may result from their greater knowledge and experience of the disease, better doctor-patient relationships, and greater trust in physician recommendations [60]. Morse contended that by decreasing negative experiences and increasing positive experiences, treatment adherence is facilitated for children with tuberculosis as well as their caregivers [61]. Moreover, Taylor maintained that the regular collection of data on patients’ life experience can help make decisions about the social effects of health interventions [62]. As a result, interventions to improve treatment adherence can be effective in improving treatment experiences in various disease conditions such as T2D.

There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the behavior related affects after the intervention. The results of covariance analysis proved the effectiveness of intervention on this construct in the IG. For each unit of change in the behavior related affects in the posttest compared to the pretest, there was a change of 0.160 units in the behavior score of IG. The present study conducted an educational intervention to develop more positive feelings towards the behavior of treatment adherence and acceptance of disease conditions and overcome negative feelings such as the fear of testing, discomfort when avoiding food and taking medicine. It seems that the participants in IG managed to overcome their negative feelings and the positive feelings were strengthened. Other researchers also reported the effectiveness of intervention based on Pender’s HPM on the behavior related emotions [36, 51]. Also, Bağrıaçık reported that education provided based on Pender’s HPM helped individuals with diabetes develop a positive attitude towards insulin treatment [63]. Probably, using psychologists and counselors in interventions can be a suitable alternative to the behavior related affects.

The results of the present study showed that the IG had a lower HBA1C three months after the educational intervention ended. This finding shows that the framework designed according to Pender’s HPM for the intervention managed to positively affect the treatment adherence behavior and lead to the control of HBA1C. Hemoglobin A1C (HBA1C) is an important indicator of whether diabetes is well controlled and represents the average blood glucose level of the past 2 to 3 months. HBA1C is a good index for diagnosing diabetes, evaluating effectiveness, observing treatment adherence, and evaluating prognosis. It plays an important role in evaluating the occurrence and development of various complications of diabetes [64]. They reported an education based on Pender’s health promotion model [63]. Other studies also supported the present findings [65, 66]. Various interventions to improve treatment adherence have shown to be effective in improving HBA1C levels in patients with T2D, indicating the potential of these interventions to positively affect clinical outcomes.

In the present study, BMI of the IG decreased after the educational intervention, but this change was not statistically significant. It should be noted that the mean BMI score of IG was within the normal range before the intervention. Fouladvand et al. conducted an intervention with an emphasis on individuals with diabetes’ weight loss and reported the effectiveness of intervention in reducing the BMI of IG [67]. Mir et al. were able to achieve a significant weight loss after the educational intervention [68]. This difference in results can be attributed to the type of intervention and the participants’ characteristics, because the aforementioned interventions focused on weight loss and on overweight individuals with diabetes. However, in the present study, due to the participants’ normal BMI, the intervention did not focus on weight loss. In conclusion, while a body of research showed that BMI improved with systematic interventions, more research is needed to determine the most effective interventions to improve BMI in obese patients.

As the results showed, after the intervention, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of treatment adherence behavior. Farooghi maintained that the educational intervention based on Pender’s model was effective in adherence to treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases [26]. Other studies also approved the effectiveness of intervention based on Pender’s HPM in treatment adherence behaviors of other diseases [33, 34]. The results reviewed in this study clearly show that educational programs, especially those based on Pender’s HPM, can significantly affect treatment adherence behaviors in chronic diseases such as diabetes. This model affects behavior at individual and interpersonal levels through using its useful constructs. Therefore, it is recommended to prepare and use such programs to improve these patients’ lives. Moreover, managers, planners and healthcare policymakers and other relevant authorities are advised to consider the implementation of detailed training programs based on Pender’s HPM to improve treatment adherence and other relevant factors and increase patients’ contribution to health promotion.

Limitations

One limitation of the present study is sampling from one city and completing the questionnaire in the form of self-report. The current research was conducted only among people with diabetes living in Bandar Abbas city, and rural people were not included, which can be another limitation of the current research and reduce the generalizability of findings.

The strength of this study is that the researcher was fluent in the local language, and was able to communicate well with local patients, which could significantly simplify instructions for those in the IG yet not fluent in Persian. Using the hemoglobin HbA1C index along with the measurement of treatment adherence behavior is also one strength of the study.

Conclusion

The present findings proved the effectiveness of educational intervention in improving the level of constructs in Pender’s HPM and the blood sugar level of T2D patients. As the results of the educational intervention showed, the use of a suitable educational approach as well as the development of educational content suitable for the target audience can significantly improve the treatment adherence behavior. It is suggested to arrange for healthcare centers to provide regular nutritional and psychological counseling for individuals with diabetes. The researchers suggest that future studies be conducted with a longer follow-up.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

T2D:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

HPM:

Pender’s health promotion model

HbA1C:

Hemoglobin A1c test

BMI (kg/m2):

Body mass index

CG:

Control group

IG:

Intervention group

References

  1. Cho N, Shaw J, Karuranga S, Huang Y, 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 

  2. Magliano DJ, Boyko EJ. IDF diabetes atlas. 2022.

  3. Noshad S, Afarideh M, Heidari B, Mechanick JI, Esteghamati A. Diabetes Care in Iran: where we stand and where we are Headed. Ann Glob Health. 2015;81(6):839–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jafarvand E, Ataey A, Edalati S. Epidemiology and death Trends due to diabetes in Iran. Q Horizon Med Sci. 2021;27(2):198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Organization WH. www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death.

  6. ID F. Diabetes in Iran International Diabetes Federation (IDF) 2023.

  7. Awad SF, Al-Mawali A, Al-Lawati JA, Morsi M, Critchley JA, Abu-Raddad LJ. Forecasting the type 2 diabetes mellitus epidemic and the role of key risk factors in Oman up to 2050: Mathematical modeling analyses. J Diabetes Investig. 2021;12(7):1162–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Global burden. Of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1223–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Brien C, van Rooyen D, Ricks E. Self-management of persons living with diabetes mellitus type 2: experiences of diabetes nurse educators. Health SA. 2020;25:1381–1381.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Committee ADAPP, Committee ADAPP. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Supplement1):S17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  12. DiMatteo MR. Variations in patients’ adherence to medical recommendations: a quantitative review of 50 years of research. Med Care. 2004;42(3):200–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Onwuchuluba EE, Soremekun RO, Oyetunde OO. Medication adherence and influencing factors in patients with type 2 diabetes attending a tertiary hospital in South-West Nigeria. J Clin Sci. 2019;16(4):138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sapkota S, Brien JA, Greenfield J, Aslani P. A systematic review of interventions addressing adherence to anti-diabetic medications in patients with type 2 diabetes–impact on adherence. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0118296.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Alshehri KA, Altuwaylie TM, Alqhtani A, Albawab AA, Almalki AH. Type 2 Diabetic patients adherence towards their medications. Cureus. 2020;12(2):e6932.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sahoo J, Mohanty S, Kundu A, Epari V. Medication adherence among patients of type II diabetes Mellitus and its Associated Risk factors: a cross-sectional study in a Tertiary Care Hospital of Eastern India. Cureus. 2022;14(12):e33074.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Horii T, Momo K, Yasu T, Kabeya Y, Atsuda K. Determination of factors affecting medication adherence in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients using a nationwide claim-based database in Japan. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(10):e0223431.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Yosef T, Nureye D, Tekalign E, Assefa E, Shifera N. Medication adherence and contributing factors among type 2 diabetes patients at Adama Hospital Medical College in Eastern Ethiopia. SAGE Open Nurs. 2023;9:23779608231158975.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ranjbaran S, Shojaeizadeh D, Dehdari T, Yaseri M, Shakibazadeh E. Determinants of medication adherence among Iranian patients with type 2 diabetes: an application of health action process approach. Heliyon. 2020;6(7):e04442.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Benrazavy L, Khalooei A. Medication adherence and its predictors in type 2 diabetic patients referring to urban primary health care centers in Kerman City, Southeastern Iran. Shiraz E-Medical J 2019, 20(7).

  21. Mirahmadizadeh A, Delam H, Seif M, Banihashemi SA, Tabatabaee H. Factors affecting insulin compliance in patients with type 2 diabetes in South Iran, 2017: we are faced with insulin phobia. Iran J Med Sci. 2019;44(3):204–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wei NJ, Wexler DJ, Nathan DM, Grant RW. Intensification of diabetes medication and risk for 30-day readmission. Diabet Med. 2013;30(2):e56–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown MT, Bussell JK. Medication adherence: WHO cares? Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(4):304–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang C, Hui Z, Zeng D, Liu L, Lee DTF. Examining and adapting the information-motivation-behavioural skills model of medication adherence among community-dwelling older patients with multimorbidity: protocol for a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e033431–033431.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mehrabbeik A, Mahmoodabad SSM, Khosravi HM, Fallahzadeh H. Breakfast consumption determinants among female high school students of Yazd Province based on Pender’s Health Promotion Model. Electron Physician. 2017;9(8):5061–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Faroughi F, Shahriari M, Keshvari M, Shirani F. The Effect of an Educational Intervention based on Pender’s Health Promotion Model on Treatment Adherence in the patients with coronary artery disease. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2021;26(3):216–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Shahabi N, Hosseini Z, Aghamolaei T, Ghanbarnejad A, Behzad A. Application of Pender’s health promotion model for type 2 diabetes treatment adherence: protocol for a mixed methods study in southern Iran. Trials. 2022;23(1):1056.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kazeminia M, Salari N, Mohammadi M. Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease in patients with type 2 diabetes Mellitus in Iran: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Diabetes Res. 2020;2020:3069867–3069867.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Nejatizadeh A, Eftekhar E, Shekari M, Farshidi H, Davoodi SH, Shahmoradi M, Poustchi H, Ghanbarnejad A, Aghamolaei T, Yousefi H, et al. Cohort profile: Bandar Kong prospective study of chronic non-communicable diseases. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(5):e0265388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Zoghi G, Kheirandish M. Prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, central obesity, and metabolic syndrome in a South Coastal Region, Iran, the PERSIAN Bandare Kong cohort study: a brief report. Hormozgan Med J. 2020;25(1):42–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ranjbaran S, Shojaeizadeh D, Dehdari T, Yaseri M, Shakibazadeh E. The effectiveness of an intervention designed based on health action process approach on diet and medication adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2022;14(1):3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Shabibi P, Zavareh MSA, Sayehmiri K, Qorbani M, Safari O, Rastegarimehr B, Mansourian M. Effect of educational intervention based on the Health Belief Model on promoting self-care behaviors of type-2 diabetes patients. Electron Physician. 2017;9(12):5960–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Habibzadeh H, Shariati A, Mohammadi F, Babayi S. The effect of educational intervention based on Pender’s health promotion model on quality of life and health promotion in patients with heart failure: an experimental study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021;21(1):478.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Masoudi R, Lotfizade M, Gheysarieha MR, Rabiei L. Evaluating the effect of Pender’s health promotion model on self-efficacy and treatment adherence behaviors among patients undergoing hemodialysis. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:197–197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lari H, Noroozi A, Tahmasebi R. Impact of Short Message Service (SMS) education based on a Health Promotion Model on the physical activity of patients with type II diabetes. Malays J Med Sci. 2018;25(3):67–77.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Goudarzi H, Barati M, Bashirian S, Moeini B. Determinants of medication adherence among hypertensive patients using the Pender’s health promotion model. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:89–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Masumeh Hemmati M, Shahin A, Nader A, Hamidreza K. The effect of family-centered care on adherence to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes. Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2020;27(2):161–71.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shahabi N, Hosseini Z, Aghamolaei T, Behzad A, Ghanbarnejad A, Dadipoor S. Determinants of adherence to treatment in type 2 Diabetic patients: a Directed qualitative content analysis based on Pender’s Health Promotion Model. Qual Health Res. 2024;34(1–2):114–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Association AD. 6. Glycemic targets: standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2017;41(Supplement1):S55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Yeoman P, Wilson S. Designing for situated learning: understanding the relations between material properties, designed form and emergent learning activity. Br J Edu Technol. 2019;50(5):2090–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tafahomi R. Effects of the wall-faced seating arrangement strategy on the behavioural patterns of the students in the architecture thesis design studio. Asian J Assess Teach Learn. 2021;11(1):85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wulandari N, Maifitrianti M, Hasanah F, Atika S, Dini Putri R. Medication Adherence Assessment among patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treated Polytherapy in Indonesian Community Health Center: A Cross Sectional-Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2020;12(Suppl 2):S758–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Moshki M, Mohammadipour F, Gholami M, Heydari F, Bayat M. The evaluation of an educational intervention based on Pender’s health promotion model for patients with myocardial infarction. Int J Health Promotion Educ. 2022;60(1):25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sabooteh S, Feizi A, Shekarchizadeh P, Shahnazi H, Mostafavi F. Designing and evaluation of E-health educational intervention on students’ physical activity: an application of Pender’s health promotion model. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):657–657.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Mohsenipouya H, Majlessi F, Forooshani AR, Ghafari R. The effects of health promotion model-based educational program on self-care behaviors in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting in Iran. Electron Physician. 2018;10(1):6255–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Cutler RL, Fernandez-Llimos F, Frommer M, Benrimoj C, Garcia-Cardenas V. Economic impact of medication non-adherence by disease groups: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e016982.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Shahin W, Kennedy GA, Stupans I. The impact of personal and cultural beliefs on medication adherence of patients with chronic illnesses: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1019–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. García-Pérez L-E, Álvarez M, Dilla T, Gil-Guillén V, Orozco-Beltrán D. Adherence to therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Therapy. 2013;4(2):175–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Vakilian P, Mahmoudi M, Oskouie F, Firouzian AA, Khachian A. Investigating the effect of educational intervention based on the Pender’s health promotion model on lifestyle and self-efficacy of the patients with diabetic foot ulcer: a clinical trial. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:466.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Khodaveisi MP, Omidi AM, Farokhi SM, Soltanian ARP. The Effect of Pender’s Health Promotion Model in improving the nutritional behavior of overweight and obese women. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2017;5(2):165–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mohammadipour F, Izadi Tameh A, Sepahvand F, Naderifar M. The impact of an Educational intervention based on Pender’s Health Promotion Model on the lifestyle of patients with type II diabetes. J Diabetes Nurs. 2015;2(4):25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Haverfield MC, Tierney A, Schwartz R, Bass MB, Brown-Johnson C, Zionts DL, Safaeinili N, Fischer M, Shaw JG, Thadaney S, et al. Can patient–provider interpersonal interventions achieve the Quadruple Aim of Healthcare? A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(7):2107–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Lee W, Noh Y, Kang H, Hong SH. The mediatory role of medication adherence in improving patients’ medication experience through patient–physician communication among older hypertensive patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1119–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Pender NJ. Health promotion model manual. 2011.

  56. Pender NJ, Murdaugh CL, Parsons MA. Health promotion in nursing practice. 2006.

  57. Goodarzi-Khoigani M, Baghiani Moghadam MH, Nadjarzadeh A, Mardanian F, Fallahzadeh H, Mazloomy-Mahmoodabad S. Impact of Nutrition Education in improving Dietary Pattern during pregnancy based on Pender’s Health Promotion Model: a Randomized Clinical Trial. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2018;23(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Hagger MS, Cameron LD, Hamilton K, Hankonen N, Lintunen T. The handbook of behavior change. Cambridge University Press; 2020.

  59. Rahimi T, Morowatisharifabad MA, Farajkhoda T, Fallahzadeh H. A comprehensive health-promoting neighborhood intervention to improve health care seeking behavior among reproductive age Iranian women. BMC Womens Health. 2023;23(1):171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Uchmanowicz B, Jankowska EA, Uchmanowicz I, Morisky DE. Self-reported medication adherence measured with morisky medication adherence scales and its determinants in hypertensive patients aged ≥ 60 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:168.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Morse RM, Myburgh H, Reubi D, Archey AE, Busakwe L, Garcia-Prats AJ, Hesseling AC, Jacobs S, Mbaba S, Meyerson K. Opportunities for mobile app–based adherence support for children with tuberculosis in South Africa. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2020;8(11):e19154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Taylor HA, Dowdy DW, Searle AR, Stennett AL, Dukhanin V, Zwerling AA, Merritt MW. Disadvantage and the experience of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). SSM - Qualitative Res Health. 2022;2:100042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bağrıaçık E, Bayraktar N. Evaluation of the effect of training given according to Pender’s Health Promotion Model on psychological insulin resistance. Hum Nutr Metabolism. 2022;29:200153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. An L, Yu Q, Chen L, Tang H, Liu Y, Yuan Q, Ji Y, Lee Y, Lu J. The association between the decline of eGFR and a reduction of hemoglobin A1c in type 2 diabetic patients. Front Endocrinol. 2022;12:723720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sanaeinasab H, Saffari M, Yazdanparast D, Karimi Zarchi A, Al-Zaben F, Koenig HG, Pakpour AH. Effects of a health education program to promote healthy lifestyle and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Prim Care Diabetes. 2021;15(2):275–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Abuhajar SM. The Effect of Diet Planning on Hemoglobin A1c in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A Sample from the UNRWA Clinic in Gaza Field. In: Proceedings: 2023: MDPI; 2023: 11.

  67. Foulavand M, Lotfi Kashani F, Waziri S, Ahadi H. The effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral Group Therapy on Weight loss, and blood glucose level in women with type 2 diabetes Mellitus. J Res Behav Sci. 2017;15(4):397–403.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Mir E, Fathi M. Changes in plasma visfatin and insulin resistance index in obese women with type 2 diabetes after Pilates Exercise. J Health Care. 2018;20(1):30–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the funders and the participants for their sincere cooperation in this study.

Funding

This project is funded by a research grant from the Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences. The funding body (HUMS) didn’t have any role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Determinants in Health Promotion Research Center, Hormozgan Health Institute, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran

    Nahid Shahabi, Zahra Hosseini, Teamur Aghamolaei, Amin Ghanbarnejad & Ahmad Behzad

  2. Food Health Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran

    Gholamali Javdan

Authors
  1. Nahid Shahabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gholamali Javdan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zahra Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teamur Aghamolaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amin Ghanbarnejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ahmad Behzad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.SH and Z.H and T.A were responsible for the study conception, design and first draft of manuscript. N.SH, A.GH and A.B were responsible for acquiring data and statistical analysis. G.J and A.GH were responsible for data interpretation and manuscript revision. N.SH, Z.H, T.A and G.J were responsible for the final intervention plan. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zahra Hosseini.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

All methods will be performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. The study is approved by the ethics committee of Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences (ethical code IR.HUMS.REC.1400.377). All participants filled written consent to participate in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare 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

Shahabi, N., Javdan, G., Hosseini, Z. et al. A health promotion model-based intervention to enhance treatment adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMC Public Health 24, 1943 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19452-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19452-3

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us