Michele Heisler1, John D Piette1. 1. The Veterans Affairs Center for Practice Management & Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; the Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center; and The University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor
Abstract
PURPOSE: The feasibility and acceptability of using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR)-based platform to facilitate peer support among older adults with diabetes was evaluated. METHODS: Diabetes patients with poor glycemic control receiving care at a Veterans' Affairs medical center completed a baseline survey, received rudimentary training, and were matched based on their diabetes-related self-management needs. They were asked to contact their partner weekly using the toll-free IVR calling line. At the completion of the 6-week period, participants completed follow-up surveys and brief telephone interviews. RESULTS: Forty of 76 patients screened for eligibility by telephone agreed to participate, and 38 completed the 6-week intervention (50% of eligible patients). More than 80% of the pairs spoke at least once a week for 2 of the 6 weeks of the intervention. A total of 79% of the participants reported that the IVR system was easy to use, and 90% stated that they would be more satisfied with their health care if this type of peer support service were available. Of the participants, 70% found the calls helpful in managing diabetes symptoms, 73% reported that their partner helped them improve their self-care, and 70% stated that they helped their partner do things to stay healthy. There were significant improvements in participants' reported diabetes self-care self-efficacy between baseline and follow-up assessments (P < .01). Qualitative assessments suggested that participants found meaning and positive reinforcement for their own self-care through supporting their partner's efforts to manage diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: An IVR peer support intervention is feasible, acceptable to patients, and may have positive effects on patients' diabetes self-management and health outcomes that warrant more rigorous evaluation in a randomized trial.
PURPOSE: The feasibility and acceptability of using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR)-based platform to facilitate peer support among older adults with diabetes was evaluated. METHODS:Diabetespatients with poor glycemic control receiving care at a Veterans' Affairs medical center completed a baseline survey, received rudimentary training, and were matched based on their diabetes-related self-management needs. They were asked to contact their partner weekly using the toll-free IVR calling line. At the completion of the 6-week period, participants completed follow-up surveys and brief telephone interviews. RESULTS: Forty of 76 patients screened for eligibility by telephone agreed to participate, and 38 completed the 6-week intervention (50% of eligible patients). More than 80% of the pairs spoke at least once a week for 2 of the 6 weeks of the intervention. A total of 79% of the participants reported that the IVR system was easy to use, and 90% stated that they would be more satisfied with their health care if this type of peer support service were available. Of the participants, 70% found the calls helpful in managing diabetes symptoms, 73% reported that their partner helped them improve their self-care, and 70% stated that they helped their partner do things to stay healthy. There were significant improvements in participants' reported diabetes self-care self-efficacy between baseline and follow-up assessments (P < .01). Qualitative assessments suggested that participants found meaning and positive reinforcement for their own self-care through supporting their partner's efforts to manage diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: An IVR peer support intervention is feasible, acceptable to patients, and may have positive effects on patients' diabetes self-management and health outcomes that warrant more rigorous evaluation in a randomized trial.
Authors: T M Damush; G L Jackson; B J Powers; H B Bosworth; E Cheng; J Anderson; M Guihan; S LaVela; S Rajan; L Plue Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: A L Hartzler; K Osterhage; G Demiris; E A Phelan; S M Thielke; A M Turner Journal: Inform Health Soc Care Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 2.439
Authors: Ronald C Plotnikoff; Kerry S Courneya; Ronald J Sigal; Jeffrey A Johnson; Nicholas Birkett; David Lau; Kim Raine; Steven T Johnson; Nandini Karunamuni Journal: Trials Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 2.279