Sarah D Kowitt1, Guadalupe X Ayala2, Andrea L Cherrington3, Lucy A Horton4, Monika M Safford5, Sandra Soto6, Tricia S Tang7, Edwin B Fisher8. 1. Peers for Progress and Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Rosenau Hall, CB #7440, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7440, USA. kowitt@email.unc.edu. 2. College of Health and Human Services, San Diego State University and the Institute for Behavioral and Community Health, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. University of Alabama Birmingham, School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA. 4. Institute for Behavioral and Community Health, San Diego, CA, USA. 5. Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 6. SDSU-UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Public Health (Health Behavior) and the Institute for Behavioral and Community Health, San Diego, CA, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 8. Peers for Progress and Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Rosenau Hall, CB #7440, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7440, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little research has examined the characteristics of peer support. Pertinent to such examination may be characteristics such as the distinction between nondirective support (accepting recipients' feelings and cooperative with their plans) and directive (prescribing "correct" choices and feelings). PURPOSE: In a peer support program for individuals with diabetes, this study examined (a) whether the distinction between nondirective and directive support was reflected in participants' ratings of support provided by peer supporters and (b) how nondirective and directive support were related to depressive symptoms, diabetes distress, and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). METHODS: Three hundred fourteen participants with type 2 diabetes provided data on depressive symptoms, diabetes distress, and HbA1c before and after a diabetes management intervention delivered by peer supporters. At post-intervention, participants reported how the support provided by peer supporters was nondirective or directive. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlation analyses, and structural equation modeling examined the relationships among reports of nondirective and directive support, depressive symptoms, diabetes distress, and measured HbA1c. RESULTS: CFA confirmed the factor structure distinguishing between nondirective and directive support in participants' reports of support delivered by peer supporters. Controlling for demographic factors, baseline clinical values, and site, structural equation models indicated that at post-intervention, participants' reports of nondirective support were significantly associated with lower, while reports of directive support were significantly associated with greater depressive symptoms, altogether (with control variables) accounting for 51% of the variance in depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Peer supporters' nondirective support was associated with lower, but directive support was associated with greater depressive symptoms.
BACKGROUND: Little research has examined the characteristics of peer support. Pertinent to such examination may be characteristics such as the distinction between nondirective support (accepting recipients' feelings and cooperative with their plans) and directive (prescribing "correct" choices and feelings). PURPOSE: In a peer support program for individuals with diabetes, this study examined (a) whether the distinction between nondirective and directive support was reflected in participants' ratings of support provided by peer supporters and (b) how nondirective and directive support were related to depressive symptoms, diabetes distress, and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). METHODS: Three hundred fourteen participants with type 2 diabetes provided data on depressive symptoms, diabetes distress, and HbA1c before and after a diabetes management intervention delivered by peer supporters. At post-intervention, participants reported how the support provided by peer supporters was nondirective or directive. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlation analyses, and structural equation modeling examined the relationships among reports of nondirective and directive support, depressive symptoms, diabetes distress, and measured HbA1c. RESULTS: CFA confirmed the factor structure distinguishing between nondirective and directive support in participants' reports of support delivered by peer supporters. Controlling for demographic factors, baseline clinical values, and site, structural equation models indicated that at post-intervention, participants' reports of nondirective support were significantly associated with lower, while reports of directive support were significantly associated with greater depressive symptoms, altogether (with control variables) accounting for 51% of the variance in depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Peer supporters' nondirective support was associated with lower, but directive support was associated with greater depressive symptoms.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chronic disease management; Diabetes; Social support
Authors: Margaret A Powers; Joan Bardsley; Marjorie Cypress; Paulina Duker; Martha M Funnell; Amy Hess Fischl; Melinda D Maryniuk; Linda Siminerio; Eva Vivian Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Geoffrey C Williams; Holly A McGregor; Allan Zeldman; Zachary R Freedman; Edward L Deci Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Guadalupe X Ayala; Leticia Ibarra; Andrea L Cherrington; Humberto Parada; Lucy Horton; Ming Ji; John P Elder Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Tara W Strine; Robert L Spitzer; Janet B W Williams; Joyce T Berry; Ali H Mokdad Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Koen Raymaekers; Vicki S Helgeson; Sofie Prikken; Janne Vanhalst; Philip Moons; Eva Goossens; Cynthia A Berg; Koen Luyckx Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2021-03-07
Authors: Megan Evans; Patrick Y Tang; Nivedita Bhushan; Edwin B Fisher; Dawn Dreyer Valovcin; Cherie Castellano Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.046