Cited by 101Diabetes Management and EducationMental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Cross-cultural and international adaptation of peer support for diabetes management

Fisher, E. B., Earp, J. A., Maman, S., Zolotor, A.·2010·Family Practice

Abstract

Peer support may improve self-management among the millions of people with diabetes around the world. A major challenge to international promotion of peer support is allowing for tailoring to population, cultural, health system and other features of specific settings, while also ensuring congruence with standards for what peer support entails. One strategy to address this challenge was used in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Diabetes Initiative. Key functions of self-management-Resources and Supports for Self-Management-were identified. Individual programmes were then encouraged to implement these resources and support in ways that were feasible in their settings and responsive to the needs and perspectives of those they serve. Extending this to peer support, three Key functions are (i) assistance in managing and living with diabetes in daily life; (ii) social and emotional support and (iii) linkage to clinical care. International promotion may be advanced by emphasizing these key functions and then encouraging local variation in the specific ways they are addressed. Similarly, evaluation of the general benefits of peer support across several individual programmes may rest on measurement of implementation of the key functions, participants' reports of receipt of them and common end points. Challenges to promoting peer support include integrating peers amidst others in the health care system, harmonizing peers with family and other social networks, maintaining the engagement of peer supporters and those they assist and preventing training, quality improvement and professionalism from distorting the fundamental benefits of support from a peer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/cmp013

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fisher, E. B., Earp, J. A., Maman, S., & Zolotor, A.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2009-03-10
Volume
27
Issue
suppl 1
Pages
i6-i16
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2159870464
Cited by
101
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
peer support, diabetes self-management, cross-cultural adaptation (acculturation), international adaptation, socioemotional support, peer supporter training, health system integration, family and social networks
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Culture, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Peer Group, Self Care, Social Support, Program Evaluation

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