Relative contributions of naturalistic and constructed support: two studies of women with type 2 diabetes.

Do distinct sources of social support have differential effects on health? Although previous research has contrasted family and friend support (naturalistic support), research on the relative effects of naturalistic support and constructed support (e.g., support groups) is extremely rare. Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes were conducted that assessed the independent effects of naturalistic and constructed support on physical activity and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were women diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from the intervention arms of two randomized controlled trials: primarily European American women (Study 1; N = 163) and exclusively Hispanic women (Study 2; N = 142). Measures assessed physical activity, HbA1c, and friend and family support at baseline and at 6 months, as well as group support after 6 months of intervention. In Study 1, only group support was related to increases in physical activity (ΔR(2) = .036). In Study 2, group support and family support showed independent effects on increases in physical activity (ΔR(2) = .047 and .060, respectively). Also, group support was related to decreases in HbA1c in Study 1 (ΔR(2) = .031) and Study 2 (ΔR(2) = .065). Overall, constructed (group) support was related to outcomes most consistently, but naturalistic (family) support showed some independent relation to physical activity improvement.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes