Peer characteristics associated with improved glycemic control in a randomized controlled trial of a reciprocal peer support program for diabetes

Abstract

Objective

In a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of diabetes reciprocal peer support, we examined characteristics of peers associated with improvements in their partner’s glycemic control.

Methods

A total of 102 adults with diabetes were randomized to the reciprocal peer support arm (vs. a nurse care management arm). The primary outcome was change in A1c over six months. Intermediate outcomes were insulin initiation and peer engagement. A number of baseline characteristics of peers were hypothesized to influence outcomes for their peer, and concordant characteristics of peer dyads were hypothesized that would influence outcomes for both peer partners.

Results

Improvement in A1c was associated with having a peer older than oneself (P < .05) or with higher diabetes-related distress (P < .01). Participants with peers who reported poorer health at baseline had worse glycemic control at follow-up (P < .01). Hypothesized concordant characteristics were not associated with A1c improvements. Participants whose peers had a more controlled self-regulation style were more likely to initiate insulin (P < .05).

Discussion

The improved outcomes of peers whose partners were older and reported more diabetes distress at baseline supports the need for further research into the peer characteristics that lead to improved outcomes. This could allow for better matching and more effective partnerships.

Keywords

Peer support peer characteristics self-management diabetes randomized controlled trial

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Liu

et al . Effectiveness of peer support for improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Publ Health 2015; 15: 471.

Tang

Funnell

Noorulla

et al . Sustaining short-term improvements over the long-term: results from a 2-year diabetes self-management support (DSMS) intervention. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2012; 95: 85–92.

Heisler

Vijan

Makki

et al . Diabetes control with reciprocal peer support versus nurse care management: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153: 507–515.

Fisher

Ballesteros

Bhushan

et al . Key features of peer support in chronic disease prevention and management. Health Affairs 2015; 34: 1523–1530.

Long

Jahnle

Richardson

et al . Peer mentoring and financial incentives to improve glucose control in African American veterans: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 416–424.

Dale

Caramlau

Lindenmeyer

et al . Peer support telephone calls for improving health (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; The Cochrane Library(4).

Small

Blickem

Blakeman

et al . Telephone based self-management support by “lay health workers” and “peer support workers” to prevent and manage vascular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 533.

Thom

Ghorob

Hessler

et al . Impact of peer health coaching on glycemic control in low-income patients with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2013; 11: 137–144.

Tang

Funnell

Sinco

et al . Comparative effectiveness of peer leaders and community health workers in diabetes self-management support: results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2014; 37: 1525–1534.

10.

Rogers

Hessler

Bodenheimer

et al . Diabetes peer coaching: do “better patients” make better coaches? Diabetes Educ 2014; 40: 107–115.

11.

Moskowitz

Thom

Hessler

et al . Peer coaching to improve diabetes self-management: which patients benefit most? J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28: 938–942.

12.

Leahey

Wing

RR.

A randomized controlled pilot study testing three types of health coaches for obesity treatment: professional, peer, and mentor. Obesity 2013; 21: 928–934.

13.

Handley

MacGregor

Schillinger

et al . Using action plans to help primary care patients adopt healthy behaviors: a descriptive study. J Am Board Fam Med 2006; 19: 224–231.

14.

Heisler

Bouknight

Hayward

et al . The relative importance of physician communication, participatory decision making, and patient understanding in diabetes self-management. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 243–252.

15.

Polonsky

Fisher

Earles

et al . Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the diabetes distress scale. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 626–631.

16.

Williams

McGregor

King

et al . Variation in perceived competence, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction: relationship to autonomy support from physicians. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 57: 39–45.

17.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman

Wright

Johnson

(eds) Measures in health psychology: a user's portfolio, causal and control beliefs. Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON, 1995, pp.35–37.

18.

Gallant

MP.

The influence of social support on chronic illness self-management: a review and directions for research. Health Educ Behav 2003; 30: 170–195.

19.

Chew

Griffin

Partin

et al . Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23: 561–566.

20.

Piette

Resnicow

Choi

et al . A diabetes peer support intervention that improved glycemic control: mediators and moderators of intervention effectiveness. Chronic Illness 2013; 9: 258–267.

21.

Norton

Miller

Kleinman

LC.

Computing adjusted risk ratios and risk differences in Stata. Stata J 2001; 1: 1–17.

22.

Rogers

Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Tech 1994; 3: 1–32.

23.

Brown

Smith

Schulz

et al . Caregiving behavior is associated with decreased mortality risk. Psychol Sci 2009; 20: 488–494.

24.

Morrow-Howell

Hong

Tang

Who benefits from volunteering? Variations in perceived benefits. Gerontologist 2009; 49: 91–102.

25.

Charlot

Santana

Chen

et al . Impact of patient and navigator race and language concordance on care after cancer screening abnormalities. Cancer 2015; 121: 1477–1483.