Xuefeng Zhong1, Zhimin Wang1, Edwin B Fisher2, Chanuantong Tanasugarn3. 1. Anhui Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hefei, Anhui Province, China. 2. Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Peers for Progress, American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, Leawood, Kansas edfisher@unc.edu. 3. Department of Health Education and Behavioral Science, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated a peer leader-support program (PLSP) for diabetes self-management in China in terms of acceptability and feasibility; implementation; perceived advantages; disadvantages and barriers; reach and recruitment; effectiveness in terms of diabetes knowledge and clinical impacts; adoption; and sustainability. METHODS: Within each of 3 cities in Anhui Province, 2 subcommunities were randomly assigned to usual care or PLSP. Peer leaders and staff of Community Health Service Centers (CHSCs) co-led biweekly educational meetings. Peer leaders also led biweekly discussion meetings, promoted regular care through the CHSCs, organized informal health promotion activities (eg, walking and tai chi groups), and provided informal individual support to participants through casual contact. RESULTS: Qualitative evaluations indicated acceptance of and positive responses to the program among patients, peer leaders, and CHSC staff. Implementation was successful in 2 of 3 subcommunities, the third failing for lack of staff resources. Reported advantages included peer support as a bridge between CHSCs and their patients. In 2 sites where the PLSP was implemented, analyses controlling for baseline differences and site showed significant benefits for PLSP relative to controls (P <0.05) for knowledge, self-efficacy, BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and both fasting and 2-hour post-prandial blood glucose. The Anhui Provincial Health Bureau has extended the PLSP model to other communities and to cardiovascular disease prevention and management. CONCLUSION: The PLSP was well accepted, feasible given sufficient administrative and staff resources, effective for those who participated, and generalizable to other sites and health problems.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We evaluated a peer leader-support program (PLSP) for diabetes self-management in China in terms of acceptability and feasibility; implementation; perceived advantages; disadvantages and barriers; reach and recruitment; effectiveness in terms of diabetes knowledge and clinical impacts; adoption; and sustainability. METHODS: Within each of 3 cities in Anhui Province, 2 subcommunities were randomly assigned to usual care or PLSP. Peer leaders and staff of Community Health Service Centers (CHSCs) co-led biweekly educational meetings. Peer leaders also led biweekly discussion meetings, promoted regular care through the CHSCs, organized informal health promotion activities (eg, walking and tai chi groups), and provided informal individual support to participants through casual contact. RESULTS: Qualitative evaluations indicated acceptance of and positive responses to the program among patients, peer leaders, and CHSC staff. Implementation was successful in 2 of 3 subcommunities, the third failing for lack of staff resources. Reported advantages included peer support as a bridge between CHSCs and their patients. In 2 sites where the PLSP was implemented, analyses controlling for baseline differences and site showed significant benefits for PLSP relative to controls (P <0.05) for knowledge, self-efficacy, BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and both fasting and 2-hour post-prandial blood glucose. The Anhui Provincial Health Bureau has extended the PLSP model to other communities and to cardiovascular disease prevention and management. CONCLUSION: The PLSP was well accepted, feasible given sufficient administrative and staff resources, effective for those who participated, and generalizable to other sites and health problems.
Authors: Juliana C N Chan; Yi Sui; Brian Oldenburg; Yuying Zhang; Harriet H Y Chung; William Goggins; Shimen Au; Nicola Brown; Risa Ozaki; Rebecca Y M Wong; Gary T C Ko; Ed Fisher Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: David H Thom; Amireh Ghorob; Danielle Hessler; Diana De Vore; Ellen Chen; Thomas A Bodenheimer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: David G Marrero; Jamy Ard; Alan M Delamater; Virginia Peragallo-Dittko; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Robin Nwankwo; Edwin B Fisher Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Edwin B Fisher; Guadalupe X Ayala; Leticia Ibarra; Andrea L Cherrington; John P Elder; Tricia S Tang; Michele Heisler; Monika M Safford; David Simmons Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Grainne O'Donoghue; Cliona O'Sullivan; Isabelle Corridan; Jennifer Daly; Ronan Finn; Kathryn Melvin; Casey Peiris Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Zahra Aziz; Michaela A Riddell; Pilvikki Absetz; Margaret Brand; Brian Oldenburg Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 3.295