C Ju1, R Shi1, L Yao1, X Ye1, M Jia1, J Han1, T Yang1, Q Lu1, H Jin1, X Cai1, S Yuan1, B Xie1, X Yu2, M M Coufal3, E B Fisher4, Z Sun1. 1. Department of Endocrinology, Zhongda Hospital, Institute of Diabetes, Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 3. Asian Centre for Health Education, Plano, American Samoa. 4. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate whether peer support would reduce diabetes distress and improve glycaemic control when added to usual diabetes education among adults with Type 2 diabetes in China. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial involving 400 adults with Type 2 diabetes from eight communities in Nanjing. All participants received usual education for an average of 2 h each month from physicians, certified diabetes educators, dieticians, psychologists and podiatric nurses. Peer support was led by trained peer leaders and included diabetes knowledge- and skills-sharing at least once a month, as well as peer-to-peer communication. The primary outcome was diabetes distress measured using the Diabetes Distress Scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose and HbA1c concentration. Outcome data were collected from all participants at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS:From 2012 to 2013, there were 200 participants in each study arm at baseline. Compared with the usual education arm, the peer support with usual education arm had greater reductions in regimen-related distress (1.4 ± 0.6 vs 1.2 ± 0.4; P=0.004) and total distress (1.3 ± 0.4 vs 1.2 ± 0.3; P=0.038) at 6 months. At 12 months, the scores for emotional burden (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 1.4 ± 0.6; P=0.002), physician-related distress (1.1 ± 0.3 vs 1.3 ± 0.4; P=0.001) and total scores (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 1.3 ± 0.4; P=0.002) were significantly lower in the peer support with usual education arm than in the usual education arm. Fasting plasma glucose levels were lower in the peer support with usual education arm than in the usual education arm at 6 months (7.5 ± 1.95 vs 8.0 ± 2.2; P=0.044) and 12 months (7.0 ± 2.3 vs 7.6 ± 1.5; P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond the benefits of usual education, peer support was effective in reducing diabetes distress for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. (Clinical Trials Registry no: NCT02119572).
RCT Entities:
AIM: To investigate whether peer support would reduce diabetes distress and improve glycaemic control when added to usual diabetes education among adults with Type 2 diabetes in China. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial involving 400 adults with Type 2 diabetes from eight communities in Nanjing. All participants received usual education for an average of 2 h each month from physicians, certified diabetes educators, dieticians, psychologists and podiatric nurses. Peer support was led by trained peer leaders and included diabetes knowledge- and skills-sharing at least once a month, as well as peer-to-peer communication. The primary outcome was diabetes distress measured using the Diabetes Distress Scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose and HbA1c concentration. Outcome data were collected from all participants at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2013, there were 200 participants in each study arm at baseline. Compared with the usual education arm, the peer support with usual education arm had greater reductions in regimen-related distress (1.4 ± 0.6 vs 1.2 ± 0.4; P=0.004) and total distress (1.3 ± 0.4 vs 1.2 ± 0.3; P=0.038) at 6 months. At 12 months, the scores for emotional burden (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 1.4 ± 0.6; P=0.002), physician-related distress (1.1 ± 0.3 vs 1.3 ± 0.4; P=0.001) and total scores (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 1.3 ± 0.4; P=0.002) were significantly lower in the peer support with usual education arm than in the usual education arm. Fasting plasma glucose levels were lower in the peer support with usual education arm than in the usual education arm at 6 months (7.5 ± 1.95 vs 8.0 ± 2.2; P=0.044) and 12 months (7.0 ± 2.3 vs 7.6 ± 1.5; P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond the benefits of usual education, peer support was effective in reducing diabetes distress for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. (Clinical Trials Registry no: NCT02119572).
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: Carolyn Ee; Barbora de Courten; Nicole Avard; Michael de Manincor; Mahmoud A Al-Dabbas; Jie Hao; Kate McBride; Shamieka Dubois; Rhiannon Lee White; Catharine Fleming; Garry Egger; Angela Blair; John Stevens; Freya MacMillan; Gary Deed; Suzanne Grant; Kate Templeman; Dennis Chang Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 5.555