Sonal J Patil1, Todd Ruppar2, Richelle J Koopman3, Erik J Lindbloom3, Susan G Elliott3, David R Mehr3, Vicki S Conn2. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri patilso@health.missouri.edu. 2. Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 3. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Peer support intervention trials have shown varying effects on glycemic control. We aimed to estimate the effect of peer support interventions delivered by people affected by diabetes (those with the disease or a caregiver) on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in adults. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from 1960 to November 2015, including Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Scopus. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with diabetes receiving peer support interventions compared with otherwise similar care. Seventeen of 205 retrieved studies were eligible for inclusion. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) of change in HbA1c level from baseline between groups using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were predefined. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (3 cluster RCTs, 14 RCTs) with 4,715 participants showed an improvement in pooled HbA1c level with an SMD of 0.121 (95% CI, 0.026-0.217; P = .01; I2 = 60.66%) in the peer support intervention group compared with the control group; this difference translated to an improvement in HbA1c level of 0.24% (95% CI, 0.05%-0.43%). Peer support interventions showed an HbA1c improvement of 0.48% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.70%; P <.001; I2 = 17.12%) in the subset of studies with predominantly Hispanic participants and 0.53% (95% CI, 0.32%-0.73%; P <.001; I2 = 9.24%) in the subset of studies with predominantly minority participants; both were clinically relevant. In sensitivity analysis excluding cluster RCTs, the overall effect size changed little. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support interventions for diabetes overall achieved a statistically significant but minor improvement in HbA1c levels. These interventions may, however, be particularly effective in improving glycemic control for people from minority groups, especially those of Hispanic ethnicity.
PURPOSE: Peer support intervention trials have shown varying effects on glycemic control. We aimed to estimate the effect of peer support interventions delivered by people affected by diabetes (those with the disease or a caregiver) on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in adults. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from 1960 to November 2015, including Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Scopus. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with diabetes receiving peer support interventions compared with otherwise similar care. Seventeen of 205 retrieved studies were eligible for inclusion. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) of change in HbA1c level from baseline between groups using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were predefined. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (3 cluster RCTs, 14 RCTs) with 4,715 participants showed an improvement in pooled HbA1c level with an SMD of 0.121 (95% CI, 0.026-0.217; P = .01; I2 = 60.66%) in the peer support intervention group compared with the control group; this difference translated to an improvement in HbA1c level of 0.24% (95% CI, 0.05%-0.43%). Peer support interventions showed an HbA1c improvement of 0.48% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.70%; P <.001; I2 = 17.12%) in the subset of studies with predominantly Hispanic participants and 0.53% (95% CI, 0.32%-0.73%; P <.001; I2 = 9.24%) in the subset of studies with predominantly minority participants; both were clinically relevant. In sensitivity analysis excluding cluster RCTs, the overall effect size changed little. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support interventions for diabetes overall achieved a statistically significant but minor improvement in HbA1c levels. These interventions may, however, be particularly effective in improving glycemic control for people from minority groups, especially those of Hispanic ethnicity.
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: Monika M Safford; Susan Andreae; Andrea L Cherrington; Michelle Y Martin; Jewell Halanych; Marquita Lewis; Ashruta Patel; Ethel Johnson; Debra Clark; Christopher Gamboa; Joshua S Richman Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lee Ling Lim; Eric S H Lau; Alice P S Kong; Melanie J Davies; Naomi S Levitt; Björn Eliasson; Carlos A Aguilar-Salinas; Guang Ning; Yutaka Seino; Wing Yee So; Margaret McGill; Graham D Ogle; Trevor J Orchard; Philip Clarke; Rury R Holman; Edward W Gregg; Juan José Gagliardino; Juliana C N Chan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elisabeth Höld; Johanna Grüblbauer; Martin Wiesholzer; Daniela Wewerka-Kreimel; Stefan Stieger; Werner Kuschei; Philip Kisser; Elisabeth Gützer; Ursula Hemetek; Astrid Ebner-Zarl; Jürgen Pripfl Journal: Trials Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Sonal J Patil; Todd Ruppar; Richelle J Koopman; Erik J Lindbloom; Susan G Elliott; David R Mehr; Vicki S Conn Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Catherine Dearie; Shamieka Dubois; David Simmons; Freya MacMillan; Kate A McBride Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sarah E P Munce; Susan Jaglal; Monika Kastner; Michelle L A Nelson; Nancy M Salbach; John Shepherd; Shane N Sweet; Ruth Wilcock; Carla Thoms; Mark T Bayley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692