Cited by 24Diabetes Management and EducationMental Health and Patient InvolvementDiabetes Management and Research

Recent Findings on the Effectiveness of Peer Support for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Werner, James J., Ufholz, Kelsey, Yamajala, Prashant·2024·Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

Abstract

Purpose of Review: To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2021–2023 that reported the effects of peer support interventions on outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Recent Findings: Literature searches yielded 137 articles and nine RCTs were ultimately reviewed. The reviewed trials involved in-person support groups, peer coach/mentor support, cultural peer support by community health workers, peer support during shared medical appointments (SMAs) including virtual reality-based SMAs, telehealth-facilitated programs, and telephone peer support. Most interventions combined two or more peer support strategies. Peer support was associated with significant decreases in HbA1c in 6 of the 9 reviewed studies. The largest statistically significant improvements in HbA1c were reported in a study of community health workers in Asia (-2.7% at 12 months) and a Canadian study in which trained volunteer peer coaches with T2DM met with participants once and subsequently made weekly or biweekly phone calls to them (-1.35% at 12 months). Systolic blood pressure was significantly improved in 3 of 9 studies. Summary: The findings suggest that peer support can be beneficial to glycemic control and blood pressure in T2DM patients. Studies of peer support embedded within SMAs resulted in significant reductions in HbA1c and suggest that linkages between healthcare systems, providers, and peer support programs may enhance T2DM outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12170-024-00737-6

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Werner, J. J., Ufholz, K., & Yamajala, P.
Affiliations
University Hospitals of Cleveland (US)
Corresponding author
Werner, James J.
Venue
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports
Published
2024-05
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
65-79
ISSN
  • 1932-9520 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-9563
OpenAlex
W4398180147
Cited by
24
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 2
FWCI
7.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Scholarly Commons @ Case Western Reserve University (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
peer support, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, blood pressure, shared medical appointments, community health workers, peer coaching, telemedicine, virtual reality, support groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review