BACKGROUND: Resource barriers complicate diabetes care management. Support from peers may help patients manage their diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To compare a reciprocal peer-support (RPS) program with nurse care management (NCM). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00320112) SETTING: 2 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care facilities. PATIENTS: 244 men with hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels greater than 7.5% during the previous 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 6-month change in HbA(1c) level. Secondary outcomes were changes in insulin therapy; blood pressure; and patient reports of medication adherence, diabetes-related support, and emotional distress. INTERVENTION: Patients in the RPS group attended an initial group session to set diabetes-related behavioral goals, receive peer communication skills training, and be paired with another age-matched peer patient. Peers were encouraged to talk weekly using a telephone platform that recorded call occurrence and provided reminders to promote peer contact. These patients could also participate in optional group sessions at 1, 3, and 6 months. Patients in the NCM group attended a 1.5-hour educational session and were assigned to a nurse care manager. RESULTS: Of the 244 patients enrolled, 216 (89%) completed the HbA(1c) assessments and 231 (95%) completed the survey assessments at 6 months. Mean HbA(1c) level decreased from 8.02% to 7.73% (change, -0.29%) in the RPS group and increased from 7.93% to 8.22% (change, 0.29%) in the NCM group. The difference in HbA(1c) change between groups was 0.58% (P = 0.004). Among patients with a baseline HbA(1c) level greater than 8.0%, those in the RPS group had a mean decrease of 0.88%, compared with a 0.07% decrease among those in the NCM group (between-group difference, 0.81%; P < 0.001). Eight patients in the RPS group started insulin therapy, compared with 1 patient in the NCM group (P = 0.020). Groups did not differ in blood pressure, self-reported medication adherence, or diabetes-specific distress, but the RPS group reported improvement in diabetes social support. LIMITATION: The study included only male veterans and lasted only 6 months. CONCLUSION: Reciprocal peer support holds promise as a method for diabetes care management.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Resource barriers complicate diabetes care management. Support from peers may help patients manage their diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To compare a reciprocal peer-support (RPS) program with nurse care management (NCM). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00320112) SETTING: 2 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care facilities. PATIENTS: 244 men with hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels greater than 7.5% during the previous 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 6-month change in HbA(1c) level. Secondary outcomes were changes in insulin therapy; blood pressure; and patient reports of medication adherence, diabetes-related support, and emotional distress. INTERVENTION: Patients in the RPS group attended an initial group session to set diabetes-related behavioral goals, receive peer communication skills training, and be paired with another age-matched peer patient. Peers were encouraged to talk weekly using a telephone platform that recorded call occurrence and provided reminders to promote peer contact. These patients could also participate in optional group sessions at 1, 3, and 6 months. Patients in the NCM group attended a 1.5-hour educational session and were assigned to a nurse care manager. RESULTS: Of the 244 patients enrolled, 216 (89%) completed the HbA(1c) assessments and 231 (95%) completed the survey assessments at 6 months. Mean HbA(1c) level decreased from 8.02% to 7.73% (change, -0.29%) in the RPS group and increased from 7.93% to 8.22% (change, 0.29%) in the NCM group. The difference in HbA(1c) change between groups was 0.58% (P = 0.004). Among patients with a baseline HbA(1c) level greater than 8.0%, those in the RPS group had a mean decrease of 0.88%, compared with a 0.07% decrease among those in the NCM group (between-group difference, 0.81%; P < 0.001). Eight patients in the RPS group started insulin therapy, compared with 1 patient in the NCM group (P = 0.020). Groups did not differ in blood pressure, self-reported medication adherence, or diabetes-specific distress, but the RPS group reported improvement in diabetes social support. LIMITATION: The study included only male veterans and lasted only 6 months. CONCLUSION: Reciprocal peer support holds promise as a method for diabetes care management.
Authors: Nancy D Harada; JoAnn Damron-Rodriguez; Valentine M Villa; Donna L Washington; Shawkat Dhanani; Herbert Shon; Manas Chattopadhyay; Howard Fishbein; Martin Lee; Takashi Makinodan; Ronald Andersen Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Susan L Norris; Phyllis J Nichols; Carl J Caspersen; Russell E Glasgow; Michael M Engelgau; Leonard Jack; George Isham; Susan R Snyder; Vilma G Carande-Kulis; Sanford Garfield; Peter Briss; David McCulloch Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Michele Heisler; Reynard R Bouknight; Rodney A Hayward; Dylan M Smith; Eve A Kerr Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: George L Jackson; Sarah L Krein; Dale C Alverson; Adam W Darkins; William Gunnar; Nancy D Harada; Christian D Helfrich; Thomas K Houston; Thomas F Klobucar; Kim M Nazi; Ronald K Poropatich; James D Ralston; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Allison C Sylvetsky; Radha Nandagopal; Tammy T Nguyen; Marisa R Abegg; Mahathi Nagarur; Paul Kaplowitz; Kristina I Rother Journal: World J Diabetes Date: 2015-12-25
Authors: Michele Heisler; Lakshmi Halasyamani; Mark E Cowen; Matthew D Davis; Ken Resnicow; Robert L Strawderman; Hwajung Choi; Rebecca Mase; John D Piette Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 8.790