https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4131-2863
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has emerged among the top ten causes of disability and mortality worldwide. Health literacy is crucial for effective self-management to reduce the burden associated with T2D. Studies have reported the effectiveness of educational strategies for improving health literacy to promote good health and well-being. However, contextual factors influence the effectiveness of these strategies. Therefore, this paper intends to explain how and why context shapes the mechanisms through which educational strategies work to improve health literacy for adults with type 2 diabetes in low socioeconomic communities.
Methods and analysis
Theory-driven realist review methods will explain how and why contexts activate different mechanisms through which educational strategies work to produce intended or unintended outcomes in low socioeconomic communities. The following five steps of realist review, which are non-linear and iterative, will be undertaken: (i) Define the scope of the review and locate existing theories on educational strategies to improve health literacy, (ii) Develop the initial programme theories, (iii) Search for evidence, (iv) Select papers and appraise, and (v) Extract data and synthesis. The following databases will be searched, but not limited to, PubMed, Education Resource Information Centre (ERIC), and PsycINFO. Papers will be selected based on relevance, richness, and rigour. Data extraction will follow both inductive and deductive approaches. The Intervention-Context-Actor-Mechanism Outcome (ICAMO) configurations will be utilised to analyse and synthesise data using retroductive reasoning. Finally, the revised programme theories, which explain how the educational strategies are expected to work across different contexts in low socioeconomic communities, will be prepared and disseminated.
Conclusion
The findings may inform practice, influence policy, and contribute to the design of health literacy programmes in similar settings. The realist review is registered with the Open Science Framework: (https://osf.io/9w867)
Citation: Mwenda - Ng’uni N, Heine M, Goma F, Martens M, Mapulanga - Lisulo M, Kamanga B, et al. (2026) Educational strategies to improve health literacy for people with type 2 diabetes in low socio-economic communities: A realist review protocol. PLoS One 21(7): e0352599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0352599
Editor: Marwan Salih Al-Nimer, University of Diyala College of Medicine, IRAQ
Received: September 15, 2025; Accepted: June 10, 2026; Published: July 30, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Mwenda - Ng’uni et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The burden of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing worldwide, becoming a major contributor to disability and mortality [1]. Low and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear approximately 80% of the global diabetes burden [2], with 77% of the unmet need for diabetes care [3]. Studies, including those from LMICS, have particularly highlighted poor self-management behaviours, poor treatment adherence, untreated diabetes, and late diagnosis as contributors to this burden among individuals with T2D [3–7]. Poorly managed diabetes increases the risk of tuberculosis [8] and worsens HIV/AIDS complications [9]. It similarly contributes to mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, leading to poor health-related quality of life [10]. All these factors have social and economic implications, imposing substantial costs on already burdened healthcare systems, communities, and people with diabetes [11]. Reducing this burden depends on effective control of diabetes, which requires daily active self-management, a task influenced by health literacy [12].
Health literacy, the key enabler of self-management [12] is defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as “the ability of individuals and communities to access, understand, appraise, remember, and apply health-related information in everyday life, continuously throughout the life course.” [13]. Evidence indicates that health literacy is positively associated with improved access to and utilisation of the healthcare system [14]. Furthermore, it enhances patient-provider interaction, which strengthens individuals’ health-related knowledge and beliefs and enhances participation in decision-making regarding their health [14]. Educational strategies function as key mechanisms for improving health literacy, equipping patients with problem-solving skills that facilitate effective self-management [15,16].
However, the implementation and outcomes of educational strategies are influenced by the complex and dynamic nature of the social systems in which they are embedded [17]. Individual responses to educational strategies are shaped by a range of contextual factors that are within the broader social determinants of health [18]. These include socioeconomic status, cultural beliefs, community perception, existing relationships and hierarchies, and the state of the healthcare system [18–20]. These contextual factors significantly affect how knowledge and skills are acquired, interpreted, and applied. More specifically, low levels of education and poverty, which are prevalent in LMICs, may negatively impact health literacy [21,22]. Consequently, these factors affect health-seeking behaviours, processing of health education, engagement with health providers, adaptation to change, and adherence to treatment plans, leading to higher risks of complications, disability and mortality [21,23–25]. This multitude of contextual barriers constitutes a complex social system for the implementation of educational strategies to enhance health literacy.
In response to these contextual challenges, several studies have generally recommended person-centred approaches with multiple strategies as effective methods that could work in low socioeconomic communities [17,21,26–30]. Educational strategies advocated by many scholars include the use of role-play, discussions, and teach-back [17,26,30,31]. Other strategies include illustrated materials with texts that could be delivered in a group or at an individual level, depending on a person’s preferences and contextual needs [26,28,31]. Equally, modern technologies, including telecommunication and digital devices, have proven effective in certain contexts in improving medication adherence and self-management behaviours [27,32,33]. However, poor usability, digital illiteracy, and low rates of sustainability and accessibility have been reported, especially among elderly populations [32]. Hence, the importance of carefully considering context, content, and methods of communication to prevent misunderstandings, as these factors can lead to varying behavioural learning and health outcomes [34].
In addition to a person-centred and multi-strategy approach, the timing and place of information delivery are equally essential to improving health literacy. Some scholars recommend providing information at the time of diagnosis, as stressful events make the recipient more responsive to information to act [17]. Davies et. al recommend delivery of this information at four major time points: at diagnosis, annually or when not meeting the target, when complications set in, and when care transition occurs [28]. Other researchers recommend delivering health information in settings where it is most likely to be applied, within communities or healthcare settings, thereby reducing barriers to utilisation [15] and addressing situational demands and complexities experienced by patients [34]. Collectively, these studies acknowledge the importance of tailoring educational strategies to specific contexts to improve health literacy [17,26–29,32,34]. Ideally, educational strategies should be theory-tested and consider context to inform effective and sustainable health literacy [35,36].
Although these studies have evaluated educational strategies aimed at improving health literacy in people with T2D, their findings are not easily transferable to diverse contexts and circumstances [11,17,21,27,29,31,32,37,38]. Other studies on health literacy focused primarily on organisational health literacy within public health and healthcare settings [39,40]. Thus, creating a gap in patient-centred educational strategies that can be transferable and implementable within low socioeconomic communities. Building on prior research, this study employs a realist review methodology to examine educational strategies that improve health literacy among people with type 2 diabetes, with particular emphasis on disadvantaged populations.
The realist review is well suited, as it provides a causal explanation that enables transferability of strategies across different circumstances [41]. The assumption is that an educational strategy that works in a particular context, group, or for an individual may not work the same way in a different group or even the same person under different circumstances [42]. Therefore, this study aims to utilise a realist review approach to explain which educational strategies work (or do not work), for whom, why, and how, in what circumstances, to improve health literacy in adults with T2D in low socioeconomic communities. The specific objectives are to:
- Identify educational strategies that improve health literacy in individuals with T2D in low socioeconomic communities.
- Describe how contexts within low socioeconomic communities influence the mechanisms through which educational strategies work to improve health literacy.
- Explain why these contexts and which context conditions influence the mechanisms through which educational strategies work.
Materials and methods
Realist review team
This study is conducted by a realist review team comprising a core team and a support team, all with expertise across various relevant fields. The core team consists of a rehabilitation specialist (SH), an implementation science expert (MH), a specialist in primary health care (FG), the principal investigator (NMN), and an assistant researcher (MML), all with experience in low-resource settings. Furthermore, the core team includes a realist methodology expert (MM), with expertise in global public health and implementation science. The core team remains actively engaged throughout the realist review as illustrated in Fig 1. The support team includes contextual experts, such as an education scientist (IM) and an endocrinologist (BK), recruited through the core team’s network. The educationist plays a crucial role in health literacy strategies [40] by providing expertise in identifying relevant learning theories and educational strategies that can be applied in diverse contexts to enhance health literacy. Meanwhile, the endocrinologist, as a specialist in diabetes, provides valuable insights into patients’ needs for managing the condition [43].
Realist review
The realist review adopts a theory-driven methodology, appropriate for identifying educational strategies that work in diverse, complex, and dynamic social settings. Grounded in the realist philosophy of science, it seeks to explain causal relationships by examining the interaction between Context, Mechanisms, and Outcome, enabling transferability of strategies across contexts through the principle of generative causation [44,45]. Generative causation examines how specific mechanisms are activated in a particular context to produce intended and unintended outcomes [42].
The foundational analytic framework is the Context-Mechanism-Outcome configuration represented by CMOc. Context refers to the social or geographical conditions in which educational strategies are implemented [41]. Mechanism denotes underlying entities, processes, forces, and resources that generate change, often unobservable (e.g., human reasoning or social interaction) [41,46,47]. Outcomes in this study may be proximal, which include accessing, understanding, appraising, and applying health information, or distal, encompassing self-management behaviour and broader health outcomes [12].
To refine the analysis of educational strategies, two additional explanatory elements are incorporated into the CMO configuration: the ‘Intervention’ and the ‘Actors’ [48]. The intervention captures the components of the educational strategies (e.g., methods, modes, and media). The inclusion of Actors acknowledges people’s agency in the design and implementation of educational strategies. Actors include (e.g., people with diabetes, families, peers, educators, health providers) [49]. The Actors’ agency influences how health information is interpreted, influencing self-management outcomes. Therefore, this study employs the Intervention Context Actor Mechanism (ICAMO) configuration (framework). Definitions of the ICAMO elements are presented in Table 1.
Steps of the realist review
This review is informed by the five steps of a realist review, which are non-linear and iterative [44]. The reporting will be guided by RAMESES publication standards: realist synthesis to ensure methodological rigour and transparency (see S1 Table) [50]. The five steps that will be undertaken to conduct the realist review are as follows: -
- Step 1: Clarifying review scope and locating the existing theories,
- Step 2: Develop the initial programme theories
- Step 3: Search for evidence
- Step 4: Select and appraise evidence
- Step 5: Extract data and synthesis
An overview of the realist review process, adapted from Kantilal et al. [51], has been illustrated in Fig 1.
The five steps to follow in this review process are outlined below, and the first two have already been completed:
Step 1: Clarifying review scope and locating existing theories.
In realist review, theories inform the initial programme theories, providing a framework for synthesising evidence from empirical studies, programmes, stakeholders, experts, and literature. To locate existing theories, the core team conducted a purposeful literature search to identify frameworks for educational strategies to improve health literacy among individuals with type 2 diabetes in low socioeconomic communities. Low socioeconomic communities are characterised by high unemployment, unstable work, limited income, low educational attainment, and restricted access to resources [52]. The search focused on frameworks addressing health literacy and self-management in chronic diseases, as they offer accessible, theory-based explanations of causal pathways [46,47,51]. The integrated model of health literacy (IMHL) was selected as it aligns with the definition of health literacy and provides a socioecological lens for understanding behaviour change [14,53].
The IMHL highlights the multiple-level contextual factors (context) that influence the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competences (mechanisms) to access, understand, appraise, and apply health information to promote self-management behaviours and good health outcomes (outcomes). The model comprises twelve components across the healthcare system, disease prevention, and health promotion. However, this study focuses on the health care domain at the individual level to address barriers to health literacy [54]. The model has been adapted from Sorensen et al. [14].
The IMHL acknowledges that self-management behaviour is influenced by interacting factors at personal, social, institutional, and societal levels largely beyond an individual’s control. Given the complexity of type 2 diabetes, comorbidities, and socioeconomic factors, a multiple-level framework was considered. However, addressing all levels is impractical, and focusing solely on the individual level is not effective and widens health inequities [47,55]. To balance effectiveness and feasibility, the IMHL retains two levels: the intrapersonal and the interpersonal levels, while also incorporating institutional interaction with the health providers.
Therefore, substantive theories from sociology, psychology, and education were purposively selected to inform strategies at these levels [56–61]. They were subsequently examined in applied studies within low socioeconomic communities to identify Outcomes, Mechanism, and Context [60–68]. These theories were consolidated by grouping similar theories and categorising them by their level of influence within the social system [62]. At the intrapersonal level. Patient Activation theory and Transtheoretical Model emphasise person-centred strategies, level of activation, and stage of change [59,63]. At the interpersonal level, Social Cognitive and Social Support theory highlights observational learning, personal agency, and modifying the external environment [64–67]. At an organisational level, Empowerment theory, rooted in Paulo Freire’s pedagogy, addresses structural factors, power dynamics, and active participation [57,68]. These theories were integrated into the IMHL to form the Rough Initial Programme Theories (IRPT) for further discussion with the support team in step 2.
Step 2: Develop initial programme theories.
This step prioritised and developed the initial programme theories for evidence testing and synthesis. Programme theories are defined as an abstract description of the components of the interventions and how they are expected to do or work to achieve a particular outcome, presented as an ICAMO framework in this study. The initial Rough Programme theory was circulated in written and diagrammatic form to the review team a month before a virtual meeting. The meeting included the core team and support team (SH, MM, NMN, IM, BK), who prioritised the theories and shaped the Initial programme Theories (IPT). Feedback from the support team members (IM and BK), who had not participated in developing the IRPT, confirmed that all four theories were essential and complementary, and that they addressed different stages of change and levels of social influence. Some educational strategies were later revised to clarify the causal pathway. The team agreed that the theories could be implemented in the low socioeconomic communities and should be taken forward for testing. Subsequently, the initial programme theory was developed, and the statement is as follows:
If educational strategies for people with type 2 diabetes in low socioeconomic communities incorporate person centred, structured practice, social support, and empowerment approaches (C), then, they are more likely to access, understand, appraise, and utilise the health information and have good self-management behaviour and health outcomes (O) because they will have participated actively in the management of their condition, acquired the necessary knowledge, skills, support, and made informed decisions and set goals, which reduces diabetes related stress, increase motivation, problem solving skills, resources ultimately, self-efficacy, and ownership of their condition (M).
The intervention and actors’ component of the ICAMO will be integrated during the testing phase. The full statements of the associated hypotheses are presented in Table 2.
The proposed ICAMO framework for initial programme theories for educational strategies is presented in Fig 2.
Step 3: Search for evidence.
This step aims to search for relevant papers, which will then be further screened and appraised to test and refine the initial programme theories. Therefore, a purposive literature search will be conducted using a revised pretested search strategy informed by the programme theories. The subject headings and keywords will be combined with ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ to ensure relevant literature is retrieved to test and refine the initial programme theories. Search strategies will be formulated collaboratively by the core team and the librarian. An example of a search strategy developed in PubMed is attached (see S2 Table). The following databases will be searched: PubMed, Global Health, Medline, Embase, Education Resource Information Centre (ERIC), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus database. Evidence will be drawn from multiple sources to prevent publication bias and ensure that relevant information is collected [69]. Other papers will be identified through:
- Manual searches of reference lists (Citation tracking)
- Manual searches of grey literature, such as the WHO Institutional Repository for information sharing (IRIS), Google Scholar
- Input from core team on other relevant publications, guidelines, or policy papers. Supplementary searches will be by the emerging programme theories, with additional targeted searches conducted as new theoretical questions arise during synthesis.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: The following inclusion criteria will be applied: (i) all study designs on educational strategies to improve health literacy in adults with T2D; (ii) adults (≥ 18 years); (iii) all settings (health care settings and in the community); and (iv) studies done in countries earmarked as low- and middle-income countries by the World Bank for the 2026 fiscal year [70] (v) studies done in low socioeconomic communities or disadvantaged groups in high-income countries. The search duration is unrestricted. The inclusion and exclusion criteria may be revised with input from the core team as the review progresses to facilitate the collection of essential components of educational strategies (see Table 3).
Step 4: Selection and appraisal of evidence.
Papers will be selected based on their relevance, richness, and rigour to test and refine the programme theories [50,71]. Unlike other traditional studies, where methodological quality, checklists, and methodological hierarchy strictly inform the eligibility criteria [71], the inclusion of papers will mainly be informed by the contribution of the paper to the development, testing, and refinement of the programme theories.
Papers from electronic libraries will be retrieved in text form for appraisal. Duplicates will be removed, and the remaining papers will undergo further screening and evaluation by the core team. Consistency in paper selection will be ensured by applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria across all sources. To minimise bias and systematic error, two reviewers, the assistant researcher (MML) and the principal investigator (NMN), will independently select and evaluate 10% of the included and excluded papers by examining the title, abstract, and full text. Reasons for excluding papers will be documented. Disagreements will be resolved through core team consensus, with all decisions documented to ensure transparency [72]. The reviewers will continue checking on each other’s work. Similarly, a reflexive journal will be maintained throughout this review process to document interpretation and critically examine how positionality may have influenced it.
Relevance: Relevance in considering papers is defined as the presence of evidence in the papers that addresses the programme theory, contributing to theory development, testing, and refinement [73]. Papers will be considered relevant if they have information on educational strategies and/or mechanisms that influence health literacy in people with T2D or chronic conditions in different contexts and outcomes (refer to the definition of outcomes) [73].
Richness: Relevant papers will further be screened for their richness. Richness will be assessed on how much the paper provides information concerning the Intervention-Context- Actor-Mechanism-Outcome configurations (ICAMO) [73]. Papers will be graded as either ‘high’ or ‘low’. ‘High’ papers provide sufficient information on how interventions change contexts, delivered to/by specific actors to trigger a certain response that yields intended or unintended outcomes. Thus, providing sufficient information on how an intervention is working, which includes individuals, social or systems processes, forces, and /or power, and an explanation of the contextual factors that influence it [74]. ‘Low’ papers offer less information on ICAMO. High papers will be included to test rigour further, while the ‘low’ papers will be excluded and kept aside for later consideration [73].
Rigour: Rigour will be tested at the programme theory and data source level [40,71]. At the programme theory level, only studies with similar theories to the theories under test will be selected [34]. For the data source level, we will consider the credibility of the sources, including the appropriateness and trustworthiness of the methods used. It will involve checking the credibility of the conclusion made by the original authors and the methodology of the study, including participant selection, methods of data collection, sample size, and data analysis [40,50]. However, papers with low rigour will also be considered if they are relevant and rich enough to refine the programme theory [71]. Evidence from low-rigour sources that have relevant information will be triangulated with other sources with rigour if the information is consistent. The core team will assess the quality of the papers. Fig 3, adapted from Dada et al. [73], illustrates the procedure that will be undertaken to select and appraise papers for the review: -
Step 5: Data extraction and synthesis.
At this stage, the core team will lead the process of data extraction, analysis, and synthesis. The support review team will contribute only at the final stage by reviewing the draft of the final Initial programme theories and the narrative development of middle-range theories (see Fig 1).
Data extraction: Data extraction will be conducted independently by the principal and assistant researcher, with each reviewing the other’s entries for accuracy and consistency. Regular meetings with the core team (SH, MH, MM, FG) will be held to discuss progress and any issues with data extraction [40].
A Microsoft Excel sheet embedded with programme theories will be developed to facilitate data collection. The sheet will be piloted on each type of evidence source before utilisation to ensure consistency and efficiency in data extraction. This extraction sheet will be populated with the Intervention-Context-Actors-Mechanism-and Outcomes from various articles. It will capture study characteristics (Title, Author, Publication year, country, study setting, participants’ characteristics, sample size, study objectives, and design) as well as findings. Study findings, as earlier stated, will include themes such as educational strategies (Interventions), barriers and facilitators of health literacy (Context), Actors, human and social systems processes, forces, powers (Mechanisms), and Outcomes. Therefore, any ICAMO components in the included studies will be extracted and entered into the data sheet using both inductive and deductive approaches.
Data to test and refine the programme theories will be extracted from selected papers. However, the search for papers will continue until theories are refuted or supported with sufficient (relevant, rich, and rigorous) evidence [75]. The data extraction sheet may be revised to include any additional information identified as important during the process (see Table 4).
Data analysis and synthesis: The process of analysis and synthesis will be iterative, as the reviewers will collate the emerging themes to form chains of inference across papers. Data will be analysed through realist logic analysis using the ICAMO configuration. It will be tested and refined by examining various interventions, contexts, actors, and mechanisms, identified from different sources, to identify patterns of causality [76,77]. The analytic process will follow the realist evaluation approach, as in Rycroft-Malone [78] and is outlined below:
- a. Extracted data will be merged into evidence tables
- b. Theming by individual reviewers for each article
- c. Reviewers’ themes for each specific article will be compared and used to formulate chains of inference
- d. Eventually, refined programme theory propositions will be formulated
A chain of inference is defined as ‘a connection that can be made across articles based on themes identified’ [78]. This means that each theme extracted from an article is coded as relating to I, C, A, M, or O, and chains of inference are built by connecting and triangulating themes across articles that together constitute an empirically supported and theoretically plausible causal relationship [78]. Unclear and conflicting themes will be addressed through a detailed re-examination of relevant papers with the core team to seek an explanation. Where applicable, methods such as juxtaposing, reconciling, situating, and adjudicating will be employed to resolve unclear themes and explanations [75]. Retroductive reasoning will be employed to uncover causal forces that lie behind identified patterns, explaining how educational strategies may change the context in ways that trigger the underlying mechanisms to produce intended or unintended health literacy outcomes [76,78]. The findings will be reviewed, and a draft of the final programme theories will be presented virtually to the support review team for feedback.
Develop a narrative and disseminate: At this stage, the entire realist review team will have virtual meetings to discuss and compile middle-range theories from the draft of the final programme theories. Finally, a narration of middle-range theories that are transferable to different settings and evidence-based will be compiled to inform practice, programmes, and policy for improving the health literacy of people with T2D in low socioeconomic communities.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this will be the first realist review to examine and provide an understanding of educational strategies for improving health literacy in individuals with type 2 diabetes in low socioeconomic communities. The findings could be transferable to other chronic conditions in similar settings. This transferability of findings will be possible due to realist reviews offering explanations as to why and how interventions work in specific contexts and not others that emanate from theoretical thinking and empirical evidence [79].
The study may also bridge the gap between research and the implementation of evidence. This gap often arises from challenges in translating research findings into real-world settings and determining whether programmes (including certain education strategies) may work in some contexts. Realist review helps to address this challenge by providing the necessary explanations of what works or does not work, in what circumstances, for whom, how, and why, to ensure that strategies are implemented to the right people, in the right place, using appropriate methods, and at the right time [80].
The study may provide clear, evidence-based guidance on how to implement health literacy programmes for people with T2D and their caregivers across diverse settings. It aims to empower individuals in vulnerable communities with the knowledge and skills needed to manage their condition and prevent complications. It may also identify which strategies are less effective for those with lower education levels and suggest ways to improve understanding and use of health information. The findings could support health providers and policymakers in designing inclusive educational strategies that enable people from low socioeconomic backgrounds to access, understand, and apply health information effectively. It may also encourage active participation in care decisions, contributing to the Sustainable Development Goal of ‘leaving no one behind’, thus reducing health inequities [81].
Anticipated challenges
The researchers may encounter challenges in developing programme theories, testing, and refining them to create transferable strategies. This will be minimised through in-depth discussions among the review team and the iterative nature of the process, supported by the multi-disciplinary collaboration of team members with relevant expertise. Another anticipated challenge is the significant time required to conduct an iterative type of research, in which the core team will be engaged more regularly to minimise this challenge. Finally, the fact that only a few studies on health literacy interventions have clear theoretical frameworks may pose a challenge [82]. However, further data searches will be conducted on these papers to identify similarities with those presenting clear theories. Other sources of information will also be searched to test and refine the Initial Programme Theory.
Limitations of the study design
People from the lowest socioeconomic groups are often underrepresented in existing literature, making it challenging to determine their experiences, preferences, or to identify the most effective strategies to enhance their health literacy.
Dissemination plans
Study results, including the ICAMO coding framework, will be made public. Dissemination of results will be through seminars and conferences. The results will be similarly published in a peer-reviewed journal to guide practice, programme development, and policy in related areas. These findings will also inform the co-creation of a Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support programme tailored to low socioeconomic communities in Zambia, to be integrated into the PEN-Plus model of care.
Amendments to the study
Any amendments that may be required during the study process for the successful completion of the review will be presented to all authors and agreed upon before implementing the changes. Modifications will be documented through an audit trail and reported in the findings, including the rationale for these changes.
Supporting information
S1 Table. RAMESES publication standards: realist synthesis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0352599.s001
(PDF)
References
- 1. Khan MAB, Hashim MJ, King JK, Govender RD, Mustafa H, Al Kaabi J. Epidemiology of Type 2 Diabetes - Global Burden of Disease and Forecasted Trends. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2020;10(1):107–11. pmid:32175717
- 2. Kengne AP, Ramachandran A. Feasibility of prevention of type 2 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries. Diabetologia. 2024;67(5):763–72. pmid:38355989
- 3. Manne-Goehler J, Geldsetzer P, Agoudavi K, Andall-Brereton G, Aryal KK, Bicaba BW, et al. Health system performance for people with diabetes in 28 low- and middle-income countries: A cross-sectional study of nationally representative surveys. PLoS Med. 2019;16(3):e1002751. pmid:30822339
- 4. Stephani V, Opoku D, Beran D. Self-management of diabetes in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1148. pmid:30268115
- 5. Bailey SL, Ayles H, Beyers N, Godfrey-Faussett P, Muyoyeta M, du Toit E, et al. Diabetes mellitus in Zambia and the Western Cape province of South Africa: Prevalence, risk factors, diagnosis and management. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016;118:1–11. pmid:27485851
- 6. Musenge EM, Michelo C, Mudenda B, Manankov A. Glycaemic Control and Associated Self-Management Behaviours in Diabetic Outpatients: A Hospital Based Observation Study in Lusaka, Zambia. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:7934654. pmid:26798654
- 7. Masupe T, Onagbiye S, Puoane T, Pilvikki A, Alvesson HM, Delobelle P. Diabetes self-management: a qualitative study on challenges and solutions from the perspective of South African patients and health care providers. Glob Health Action. 2022;15(1):2090098. pmid:35856773
- 8. McMurry HS, Mendenhall E, Rajendrakumar A, Nambiar L, Satyanarayana S, Shivashankar R. Coprevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus and tuberculosis in low-income and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019;35(1):e3066. pmid:30144270
- 9. Borkowska T, Chkhartishvili N, Karkashadze E, Chokoshvili O, Gabunia P, Sharvadze L, et al. The prevalence of hyperglycemia and its impact on mortality among people living with HIV in Georgia. PLoS One. 2022;17(10):e0276749. pmid:36301817
- 10. Owens-Gary MD, Zhang X, Jawanda S, Bullard KMK, Allweiss P, Smith BD. The Importance of Addressing Depression and Diabetes Distress in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(2):320–4. pmid:30350030
- 11. Borzuoi TB, Kordestani F, Ashktorab T, Delgoshaei Y, Kebria BS. Designing a health literacy model for patients with diabetes. BMC Health Services Research. 2024;24(1). pmid:39103821
- 12. Liu C, Wang D, Liu C, Jiang J, Wang X, Chen H, et al. What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Fam Med Community Health. 2020;8(2):e000351. pmid:32414834
- 13.
Kickbusch I, Pelikan JM, Apfel F, Tsouros AD. Health literacy: the solid facts. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. 2013.
- 14. Sørensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, et al. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:80. pmid:22276600
- 15. Grady PA, Gough LL. Self-management: a comprehensive approach to management of chronic conditions. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(8):e25–31. pmid:24922170
- 16. Chatterjee S, Davies MJ, Heller S, Speight J, Snoek FJ, Khunti K. Diabetes structured self-management education programmes: a narrative review and current innovations. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(2):130–42. pmid:28970034
- 17.
Orkan O. International handbook of health literacy: research, practice and policy across the lifespan. Policy Press. 2019.
- 18. Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, Chin MH, Gary-Webb TL, Navas-Acien A, et al. Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review. Diabetes Care. 2020;44(1):258–79.
- 19. Chamoun D, Ramasamy M, Ziegler C, Yu CH, Wijeyesekera P, Advani A, et al. Patient, family and caregiver engagement in diabetes care: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2024;14(8):e086772. pmid:39209491
- 20. WHO. Social determinant of health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinant-of-health 2021. Accessed 2026 May 27.
- 21. Alsaedi R, McKeirnan K. Literature Review of Type 2 Diabetes Management and Health Literacy. Diabetes Spectrum. 2021;34(4):399–406.
- 22. Dube L, Van den Broucke S, Housiaux M, Dhoore W, Rendall-Mkosi K. Type 2 diabetes self-management education programs in high and low mortality developing countries: a systematic review. Diabetes Educ. 2015;41(1):69–85. pmid:25392297
- 23. Agardh E, Allebeck P, Hallqvist J, Moradi T, Sidorchuk A. Type 2 diabetes incidence and socio-economic position: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):804–18. pmid:21335614
- 24. Job C, Adenipekun B, Cleves A, Samuriwo R. Health professional’s implicit bias of adult patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2022;12(12):e059837. pmid:36523234
- 25. Aikaeli F, Njim T, Gissing S, Moyo F, Alam U, Mfinanga SG, et al. Prevalence of microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in low-and-middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022;2(6):e0000599. pmid:36962416
- 26. Sheridan SL, Halpern DJ, Viera AJ, Berkman ND, Donahue KE, Crotty K. Interventions for individuals with low health literacy: a systematic review. J Health Commun. 2011;16 Suppl 3:30–54. pmid:21951242
- 27. Friedman AJ, Cosby R, Boyko S, Hatton-Bauer J, Turnbull G. Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: a systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J Cancer Educ. 2011;26(1):12–21. pmid:21161465
- 28. Davis J, Fischl AH, Beck J, Browning L, Carter A, Condon JE, et al. 2022 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(2):484–94. pmid:35050365
- 29. Heine M, Lategan F, Erasmus M, Lombaard C-M, Mc Carthy N, Olivier J, et al. Health education interventions to promote health literacy in adults with selected non-communicable diseases living in low-to-middle income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(6):1417–28. pmid:33749092
- 30. Swavely D, Vorderstrasse A, Maldonado E, Eid S, Etchason J. Implementation and evaluation of a low health literacy and culturally sensitive diabetes education program. J Healthc Qual. 2014;36(6):16–23. pmid:23799918
- 31. Captieux M, Pearce G, Parke HL, Epiphaniou E, Wild S, Taylor SJC, et al. Supported self-management for people with type 2 diabetes: a meta-review of quantitative systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2018;8(12):e024262. pmid:30552277
- 32. Georgieva N, Tenev V, Kamusheva M, Petrova G. Diabetes Mellitus—Digital Solutions to Improve Medication Adherence: Scoping Review. Diabetology. 2023;4(4):465–80.
- 33. Krutter S, Schuessler N, Kutschar P, Šabić E, Dellinger J, Klausner T, et al. Piloting of the virtual telecare technology “Addison Care” to promote self-management in persons with chronic diseases in a community setting: protocol for a mixed-methods user experience, user engagement and usability pilot study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9):e062159. pmid:36123104
- 34. Nutbeam D, Lloyd JE. Understanding and Responding to Health Literacy as a Social Determinant of Health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021;42:159–73. pmid:33035427
- 35. Stormacq C, Wosinski J, Boillat E, Van den Broucke S. Effects of health literacy interventions on health-related outcomes in socioeconomically disadvantaged adults living in the community: a systematic review. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(7):1389–469. pmid:32813388
- 36. Cudjoe J, Delva S, Cajita M, Han HR. Empirically Tested Health Literacy Frameworks. Health Lit Res Pract. 2020;4(1):e22–44. pmid:32053206
- 37. Meherali S, Punjani NS, Mevawala A. Health literacy interventions to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. Health Lit Res Pract. 2020;4(4):e251–66. pmid:33313935
- 38. Kumah E, Otchere G, Ankomah SE, Fusheini A, Kokuro C, Aduo-Adjei K, et al. Diabetes self-management education interventions in the WHO African Region: A scoping review. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0256123. pmid:34403455
- 39. Elbrink SH, Elmer SL, Osborne RH. Are communities of practice a way to support health literacy: a study protocol for a realist review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e048352. pmid:34389571
- 40. Meggetto E, Kent F, Ward B, Keleher H. Factors influencing implementation of organizational health literacy: a realist review. J Health Organ Manag. 2020. pmid:32186830
- 41. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards) project. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2014;2(30):1–252.
- 42. Greenhalgh J, Manzano A. Understanding ‘context’ in realist evaluation and synthesis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2021;25(5):583–95.
- 43. Malkani S, Keitz SA, Harlan DM. Redesigning Diabetes Care: Defining the Role of Endocrinologists Among Alternative Providers. Curr Diab Rep. 2016;16(12):121. pmid:27766581
- 44.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist synthesis: an introduction. 2004.
- 45. Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Protocol-realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES). 2011. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/115
- 46. Shearn K, Allmark P, Piercy H, Hirst J. Building realist program theory for large complex and messy interventions. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1).
- 47. Hunter R, Gorely T, Beattie M, Harris K. Realist review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2022.
- 48. De Weger E, Van Vooren NJE, Wong G, Dalkin S, Marchal B, Drewes HW. What’s in a Realist Configuration? Deciding Which Causal Configurations to Use, How, and Why. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19.
- 49. Martens M, Van Olmen J, Wouters E, Boateng D, Van Damme W, Van Belle S. Using the multiple streams model to elicit an initial programme theory: from policy dialogues to a roadmap for scaling up integrated care. BMJ Glob Health. 2023;8(9).
- 50. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21. pmid:23360677
- 51. Kantilal K, Hardeman W, Whiteside H, Karapanagiotou E, Small M, Bhattacharya D. Realist review protocol for understanding the real-world barriers and enablers to practitioners implementing self-management support to people living with and beyond cancer. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e037636. pmid:32883731
- 52. Zhou Y, Xu Q, He J. Socioeconomic status, health, subjective well-being and worries about healthcare accessibility among Chinese citizens—based on an age-gender-region stratified model. International Review of Economics & Finance. 2025;102:104390.
- 53. Pronk NP, Woodard C, Zimmerman FJ, Arena R. An ecological framework for population health and well-being. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2025;90:13–21. pmid:40154649
- 54.
WHO. Health literacy development for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. 2022.
- 55.
Sallis FJ, Owen N, Fisher BE. Ecological Models of Health Behaviour. Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4th ed. 2008.
- 56. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215. pmid:847061
- 57. Chalaune BS. Paulo freire’s critical pedagogy in educational transformation. Int J Res Granthaalayah. 2021;9(4):185–94.
- 58. Fredrickson BL. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004;359(1449):1367–78. pmid:15347528
- 59. Miezah D, Amoadu M, Opoku PN, Junior EM, Zutah J, Obeng P, et al. Transtheoretical-Based Model of Intervention for Diabetes and Prediabetes: A Scoping Review. J Diabetes Res. 2024;2024:2935795. pmid:38712311
- 60.
Lakey B, Cohen S. Social support theory and measurement.
- 61. Israel BA. Social networks and health status: linking theory, research, and practice. Patient Couns Health Educ. 1982;4(2):65–79. pmid:10258419
- 62. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10 Suppl 1:21–34. pmid:16053581
- 63. Cuevas H, Heitkemper E, Huang Y-C, Jang DE, García AA, Zuñiga JA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient activation in people living with chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(9):2200–12. pmid:33610334
- 64. Sebastian AT, Rajkumar E, Tejaswini P, Lakshmi R, Romate J. Applying social cognitive theory to predict physical activity and dietary behavior among patients with type-2 diabetes. Health Psychol Res. 2021;9(1):24510. pmid:35106392
- 65. Azeez O, Bratcher-Rasmus B, Dickey-Laprocido G, Rios J. The Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Diabetes Health Education Practice for Hispanic American women. AJHS. 2020;33(2).
- 66. Vissenberg C, Stronks K, Nijpels G, Uitewaal PJM, Middelkoop BJC, Kohinor MJE, et al. Impact of a social network-based intervention promoting diabetes self-management in socioeconomically deprived patients: a qualitative evaluation of the intervention strategies. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010254. pmid:27075842
- 67. Otanga H, Semujju B, Mwaniki L, Aungo J. Peer support and social networking interventions in diabetes self-management in Kenya and Uganda: A scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2022. pmid:36155494
- 68. Liu X, Wang S, Wei L, Liu Y, Bian J, Wang S, et al. The impact of empowerment theory-based health education on Alzheimer’s disease informal caregivers: a randomized controlled trial. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1393823. pmid:39257940
- 69. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132–40. pmid:26360830
- 70. World Bank Country and Lending Groups – World Bank Data Help Desk. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups Accessed 2025 March 26.
- 71. Dada S, De Brún A, Banda EN, Bhattacharya S, Mutunga Z, Gilmore B. A realist review protocol on communications for community engagement in maternal and newborn health programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Systematic Reviews. 2022;11(1). pmid:36096841
- 72. Pearsons A, Neubeck L, Hendriks JM, Hanson CL. Justification, rationale and methodological approaches to realist reviews. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2023;22(1):107–12. pmid:35881526
- 73. Dada S, Dalkin S, Gilmore B, Hunter R, Mukumbang FC. Applying and reporting relevance, richness and rigour in realist evidence appraisals: Advancing key concepts in realist reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2023;14(3):504–14. pmid:36872619
- 74.
Tilley R. Realistic evaluation. 1997.
- 75. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards) project. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2014;2(30):1–252.
- 76. Peters LA. An exploration of analytical tools to conduct a realist synthesis and demonstrate programme theory development: An example from a realist review. Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences. 2024.
- 77. Yadav UN, Smith M, Agostino J, Sinka V, Williamson L, Wyber R, et al. Understanding the implementation of health checks in the prevention and early detection of chronic diseases among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2023;13(6):e071234. pmid:37344121
- 78. Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, DeCorby K, Bucknall TK, Kent B, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:33. pmid:22515663
- 79. Widnall E, Dodd S, Russell AE, Curtin E, Simmonds R, Limmer M, et al. Mechanisms of school-based peer education interventions to improve young people’s health literacy or health behaviours: A realist-informed systematic review. PLoS One. 2024;19(5):e0302431. pmid:38820530
- 80. Sarkies MN, Francis-Auton E, Long JC, Pomare C, Hardwick R, Braithwaite J. Making implementation science more real. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1). pmid:35752754
- 81. United Nations Systems Chief Executives Board for Coordination. Equality and Non-Discrimination at the Heart of Sustainable Development Leaving No One Behind: A Shared United Nations System Framework for Action. 2017. https://unsdg.un.org/2030-agenda/universal-values/leave-no-one-behind
- 82. Walters R, Leslie SJ, Polson R, Cusack T, Gorely T. Establishing the efficacy of interventions to improve health literacy and health behaviours: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1040. pmid:32605608