Cited by 196Diabetes Management and EducationMental Health and Patient InvolvementCommunity Health and Development

Peer support of complex health behaviors in prevention and disease management with special reference to diabetes: systematic reviews

Open access
Fisher, Edwin B., Boothroyd, Renée I., Elstad, Emily A., Hays, Laura, Henes, Amy, Maslow, Gary R., Velicer, Clayton·2017·Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Examine Peer Support (PS) for complex, sustained health behaviors in prevention or disease management with emphasis on diabetes prevention and management. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: PS was defined as emotional, motivational and practical assistance provided by nonprofessionals for complex health behaviors. Initial review examined 65 studies drawn from 1442 abstracts identified through PubMed, published 1/1/2000-7/15/2011. From this search, 24 reviews were also identified. Extension of the search in diabetes identified 30 studies published 1/1/2000-12/31/2015. RESULTS: In initial review, 54 of all 65 studies (83.1%) reported significant impacts of PS, 40 (61.5%) reporting between-group differences and another 14 (21.5%) reporting significant within-group changes. Across 19 of 24 reviews providing quantifiable findings, a median of 64.5% of studies reviewed reported significant effects of PS. In extended review of diabetes, 26 of all 30 studies (86.7%) reported significant impacts of PS, 17 (56.7%) reporting between-group differences and another nine (30.0%) reporting significant within-group changes. Among 19 of these 30 reporting HbA1c data, average reduction was 0.76 points. Studies that did not find effects of PS included other sources of support, implementation or methodological problems, lack of acceptance of interventions, poor fit to recipient needs, and possible harm of unmoderated PS. CONCLUSIONS: Across diverse settings, including under-resourced countries and health care systems, PS is effective in improving complex health behaviors in disease prevention and management including in diabetes.

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 · 10.1186/s40842-017-0042-3

Cites

119 of 119 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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [18]Bhutta Z Lassi Z Pariyo G Huicho L Global experience of community health workers for delivery of health related millennium development goals: a systematic review, country case studies, and recommendations for integration into national health systems 2010 Geneva Global Health Workforce Alliance
  2. [20]Global Health Workforce Alliance Global experience of community health Workers for Delivery of health related millennium development goals: a systematic review, country case studies, and recommendations for integration into National Health Systems 2010 Geneva World Health Organization
  3. [24]Lehmann U, Sanders D. Community health workers: what do we know about them? The state of the evidence on programmes, activities, costs and impact on health outcomes of using community health workers. World Health Organization. 2007;41:1–42.
  4. [25]Perry HB Zulliger R Rogers MM Community health workers in low-, middle-, and high-income countries: an overview of their history, recent evolution, and current effectiveness Annu Rev Public Health 2014 35 399 421 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182354 24387091 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fisher, E. B., Boothroyd, R. I., Elstad, E. A., Hays, L., Henes, A., Maslow, G. R., & Velicer, C.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • American Institutes for Research (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • RTI International (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Fisher, Edwin B.
Venue
Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology
Published
2017-05-25
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
4-4
ISSN
2055-8260 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2618136378
Cited by
196
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation
  • American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Gillings Innoation Laboratory, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina
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 › Community Health and Development
Keywords
peer support, diabetes prevention, diabetes management, HbA1c, glycemic control, disease prevention, intervention effectiveness

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