Cited by 49Diabetes Management and EducationHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMental Health and Patient Involvement

In-person and technology-mediated peer support in diabetes care: a systematic review of reviews and gap analysis

Litchman, Michelle L., Oser, Tamara K., Hodgson, Lisa, Heyman, Mark, Walker, Heather R., Deroze, Phyllisa, Rinker, Joanne, Warshaw, Hope·2020·The Diabetes Educator

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to report a systematic review of reviews of evidence and gaps focused on in-person and technology-mediated diabetes peer support and its impact on clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reviews in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Reviews published in English from December 1978 through December 2018 examining clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes were included. The search yielded 167 reviews that were examined for inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Nine systematic reviews and meta-analyses meeting criteria were included. Findings suggest peer support interventions can have a positive impact on clinical (A1C, blood pressure, cholesterol, weight), behavioral (diabetes knowledge, being active, healthy eating, medication management, self-management, self-efficacy, empowerment), and psychosocial (social support, health and diabetes distress, depression, quality of life) outcomes. Research gaps exist related to understanding the effects of emerging technology-mediated peer support modalities and the effects of peer support on gestational diabetes. CONCLUSION: Many clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial benefits related to in-person and technology-mediated peer support exist. Diabetes care and education specialists should incorporate and recommend peer support resources for people with diabetes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0145721720913275

Cites

28 of 28 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
Litchman, M. L., Oser, T. K., Hodgson, L., Heyman, M., Walker, H. R., Deroze, P., Rinker, J., & Warshaw, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Saratoga Hospital (US)
  • Center for Diabetes and Mental Health, San Diego, California
  • United Arab Emirates University (AE)
  • American Association of Diabetes Educators (US)
  • Hope Warshaw Associates, LLC, Asheville, North Carolina
Corresponding author
Litchman, Michelle L.
Venue
The Diabetes Educator
Published
2020-04-23
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
230-241
ISSN
  • 0145-7217 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-6063
OpenAlex
W3019410468
Cited by
49
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
peer support, diabetes management, glycemic control, HbA1c, self-management, self-efficacy, diabetes distress, depression, social support, quality of life, gestational diabetes mellitus, diabetes education
MeSH terms
Self-Management, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Peer Group, Pregnancy, Review Literature as Topic, Social Support, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Diabetes, Gestational, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Biomedical Technology

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