Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of Peer Health Coaching on Glycemic Control in Low-Income Patients With Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Thom, D. H., Ghorob, A., Hessler, D., De Vore, D., Chen, E., Bodenheimer, T. A.·2013·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Peer health coaches offer a potential model for extending the capacity of primary care practices to provide self-management support for patients with diabetes. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test whether clinic-based peer health coaching, compared with usual care, improves glycemic control for low-income patients who have poorly controlled diabetes. METHOD: We undertook a randomized controlled trial enrolling patients from 6 public health clinics in San Francisco. Twenty-three patients with a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) level of less than 8.5%, who completed a 36-hour health coach training class, acted as peer coaches. Patients from the same clinics with HbA1C levels of 8.0% or more were recruited and randomized to receive health coaching (n = 148) or usual care (n = 151). The primary outcome was the difference in change in HbA1C levels at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with a decrease in HbA1C level of 1.0% or more and proportion of patients with an HbA1C level of less than 7.5% at 6 months. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed model with and without adjustment for differences in baseline variables. RESULTS: At 6 months, HbA1C levels had decreased by 1.07% in the coached group and 0.3% in the usual care group, a difference of 0.77% in favor of coaching (P = .01, adjusted). HbA1C levels decreased 1.0% or more in 49.6% of coached patients vs 31.5% of usual care patients (P = .001, adjusted), and levels at 6 months were less than 7.5% for 22.0% of coached vs 14.9% of usual care patients (P = .04, adjusted). CONCLUSIONS: Peer health coaching significantly improved diabetes control in this group of low-income primary care patients.

Overview

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 · 10.1370/afm.1443

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Thom, D. H., Ghorob, A., Hessler, D., De Vore, D., Chen, E., & Bodenheimer, T. A.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2013-03-01
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
137-144
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2121138662
Cited by
304
References
10
FWCI
19.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of Peer Health Coaching on Glycemic Control in Low-Income Patients With Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1370/afm.1443
The paper
Thom, D. H., Ghorob, A., Hessler, D., De Vore, D., Chen, E., & Bodenheimer, T. A. (2013). Impact of Peer Health Coaching on Glycemic Control in Low-Income Patients With Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Annals of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1443

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.