You will be shown the abstract of a medical clinical trial report. Your task is to extract all the findings from this report into a JSON array. Each finding should contain the following five elements:

- Intervention: The medical intervention being tested. This should be a text span copied from the input passage.
- Comparator: The baseline against which the intervention is being evaluated. This should be a text span copied from the input passage. If no comparator is reported, set to `null`.
- Outcome: The medical outcome whose effect is being measured. This should be a text span copied from the input passage.
- Effect: The effect of the intervention on the outcome, relative to the comparator. The effect should be one of the following three values: ("significantly increased", "significantly decreased", "no significant difference").
- Evidence: The evidence for the effect. This should be a text span copied from the input passage.

Please format your output as a JSON array. Each entry in the output should be an array containing the 5 elements listed above, in the following order: [<intervention>, <comparator>, <outcome>, <effect>, <evidence>].

For example, an output with two findings might read:
```
[["aspirin", "placebo", "headache severity", "significantly decreased", "Mean headache severity was significantly decreased in the aspirin group compared to the placebo group (p < 0.05)."], ["aspirin", "placebo", "weight loss", "no significant difference", "We did not observe any difference in weight loss between the group given aspirin relative to the control group"]]
```

There are 1 finding(s) in the abstract below. Please extract them. Output only the JSON array with these 1 findings. Do not include any additional text.

Abstract:
ABSTRACT.BACKGROUND: Diabetes is now a global epidemic, but most cases are now in low- and middle-income countries. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is key to enabling patients to manage their chronic condition and can reduce the occurrence of costly and devastating complications. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of different DSME programmes in resource limited settings.

ABSTRACT.METHODS: We conducted an unblinded, parallel-group, individually-randomised controlled trial at the University of Calabar Teaching Hospital (Nigeria) to evaluate whether an intensive and systematic DSME programme, using structured guidelines, improved glycaemic control compared to the existing ad hoc patient education (clinical practice was unchanged). Eligible patients (≥18 years, HbA1c > 8.5% and physically able to participate) were randomly allocated by permuted block randomisation to participate for six months in either an intensive or conventional education group. The primary outcome was HbA1c (%) at six-months.

ABSTRACT.RESULTS: We randomised 59 participants to each group and obtained six-month HbA1c outcomes from 53 and 51 participants in the intensive and conventional education groups, respectively. Intensive group participants had a mean six-month HbA1c (%) of 8.4 (95% CI: 8 to 8.9), while participants in the conventional education group had a mean six-month HbA1c (%) of 10.2 (95% CI: 9.8 to 10.7). The difference was statistically (P < 0.0001) and clinically significant, with intensive group participants having HbA1c outcomes on average -1.8 (95% CI: -2.4 to -1.2) percentage points lower than conventional group participants. Results were robust to adjustment for a range of covariates and multiple imputation of missing outcome data.

ABSTRACT.CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a structured, guideline-based DSME intervention in a LMIC setting versus a pragmatic comparator. The intervention is potentially replicable at other levels of the Nigerian healthcare system and in other LMICs, where nurses/diabetes educators can run the programme.

ABSTRACT.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR20130200047835

Findings:
[["Intensive Patient Education", "Conventional Education", "HbA1c", "significantly decreased", "Intensive group participants had a mean six-month HbA1c (%) of 8.4 (95% CI: 8 to 8.9), while participants in the conventional education group had a mean six-month HbA1c (%) of 10.2 (95% CI: 9.8 to 10.7). The difference was statistically (P \u003c 0.0001) and clinically significant,"]]