Lyndee Knox1, Jessica Huff2, Deborah Graham3, Michelle Henry4, America Bracho5, Cynthia Henderson4, Caroline Emsermann6. 1. LA Net Community Health Resource and Research Network, Los Angeles, California lyndee.knox@gmail.com. 2. Danbury Hospital Department of Medical Education and Research, Danbury, Connecticut. 3. DARTNet Institute, Aurora, Colorado. 4. WellMed Medical Management, Inc, San Antonio, Texas. 5. Latino Health Access, Santa Ana, California. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a peer support program on the health outcomes of patients already receiving well-organized, comprehensive diabetes care. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods, nonrandomized, control-group design to evaluate the impact of a peer-mentoring program on the health outcomes and self-management behaviors of adults with type 2 diabetes in 15 primary care practices in San Antonio. Propensity score analysis, t-tests, and multivariable repeated analyses were used to evaluate impact. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 participants in the intervention group and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Both intervention and control groups showed significant improvement on all health indicators from baseline to 6-month follow-up (P<.001). Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) decreased slightly faster for patients in the intervention group (P=.04). Self-management behaviors improved significantly from baseline to 6-month follow-up for the intervention group. Interviewed participants also reported reductions in social isolation and extension of impact of health behavior changes to multiple generations of family members. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of peer mentoring to already well-organized comprehensive diabetes care does not improve outcomes. However, findings suggest that the impact of the program extends to members of the participants' families, which is an intriguing finding that deserves further study.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a peer support program on the health outcomes of patients already receiving well-organized, comprehensive diabetes care. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods, nonrandomized, control-group design to evaluate the impact of a peer-mentoring program on the health outcomes and self-management behaviors of adults with type 2 diabetes in 15 primary care practices in San Antonio. Propensity score analysis, t-tests, and multivariable repeated analyses were used to evaluate impact. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 participants in the intervention group and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Both intervention and control groups showed significant improvement on all health indicators from baseline to 6-month follow-up (P<.001). Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) decreased slightly faster for patients in the intervention group (P=.04). Self-management behaviors improved significantly from baseline to 6-month follow-up for the intervention group. Interviewed participants also reported reductions in social isolation and extension of impact of health behavior changes to multiple generations of family members. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of peer mentoring to already well-organized comprehensive diabetes care does not improve outcomes. However, findings suggest that the impact of the program extends to members of the participants' families, which is an intriguing finding that deserves further study.
Authors: Matthew Pantell; David Rehkopf; Douglas Jutte; S Leonard Syme; John Balmes; Nancy Adler Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Stephen M Petterson; Winston R Liaw; Robert L Phillips; David L Rabin; David S Meyers; Andrew W Bazemore Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Susan V Eisen; Mark R Schultz; Lisa N Mueller; Curt Degenhart; Jack A Clark; Sandra G Resnick; Cindy L Christiansen; Moe Armstrong; Kathryn A Bottonari; Robert A Rosenheck; Dolly Sadow Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Edwin B Fisher; Renée I Boothroyd; Muchieh Maggy Coufal; Linda C Baumann; Jean Claude Mbanya; Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus; Boosaba Sanguanprasit; Chanuantong Tanasugarn Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Fleur E P van Dooren; Giesje Nefs; Miranda T Schram; Frans R J Verhey; Johan Denollet; François Pouwer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Edith M Williams; J Madison Hyer; Ramakrishnan Viswanathan; Trevor D Faith; Leonard Egede; Jim C Oates; Gailen D Marshall Journal: Hum Immunol Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 2.850
Authors: Nasrollah Ghahramani; Vernon M Chinchilli; Jennifer L Kraschnewski; Eugene J Lengerich; Christopher N Sciamanna Journal: Kidney Dis (Basel) Date: 2021-03-31
Authors: David Simmons; Christopher Bunn; Fred Nakwagala; Monika M Safford; Guadalupe X Ayala; Michaela Riddell; Jonathan Graffy; Edwin B Fisher Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: M A Riddell; J A Dunbar; P Absetz; R Wolfe; H Li; M Brand; Z Aziz; B Oldenburg Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 3.295