Cited by 29Diabetes Management and EducationMental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Policy Implementation Science

Peer support interventions in type 2 diabetes: Review of components and process outcomes

Afshar, Rowshanak, Tang, Tricia S., Askari, Amir S., Sidhu, Rawel, Brown, Helen, Sherifali, Diana·2020·Journal of Diabetes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This review seeks to identify (a) the various components and process outcomes of type 2 diabetes peer support (PS) interventions and (b) the measures implemented to monitor intervention fidelity and evaluate outcomes in these studies. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to May 2019. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from eligible articles via the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist (why, what, who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, and how well). RESULTS: Twenty-three trials were included. The total number of participants was 7178. Most interventions were in primary care. Although face-to-face was the most common modality of contact, rates of contact were highest for telephone. Potential peer leaders (PLs) were identified primarily through recommendations from health professionals, based on their communication skills, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and coaching interest. PLs were mostly female, university educated, and had a long history of diabetes (≥ 10 years). PL training varied significantly in length and content; the two most frequent topics were communication skills and diabetes knowledge. Although several studies implemented methods to evaluate "intervention fidelity," only few rigorously assessed the two key components of fidelity, "adherence" and "competence," through audio- and video-taping or direct observations. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of PS on participants' health outcomes is well investigated; however, the implementation and evaluation strategies vary significantly across these studies. In the present review, we define the various components of PS interventions and propose suggestions for enhancing the implementation and evaluation of future PS models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1753-0407.12999

Cites

45 of 45 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Afshar, R., Tang, T. S., Askari, A. S., Sidhu, R., Brown, H., & Sherifali, D.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Afshar, Rowshanak
Venue
Journal of Diabetes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-12-06
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
315-338
ISSN
  • 1753-0393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1753-0407
OpenAlex
W2982281400
Cited by
29
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
peer support, type 2 diabetes, peer leaders, intervention fidelity, intervention components, primary care, process outcomes, TIDieR checklist, HbA1c
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Peer Group, Self Care, Self-Help Groups, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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