The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diabetes Control With Reciprocal Peer Support Versus Nurse Care Management: A Randomized Trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Resource barriers complicate diabetes care management. Support from peers may help patients manage their diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To compare a reciprocal peer-support (RPS) program with nurse care management (NCM). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00320112) SETTING: 2 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care facilities. PATIENTS: 244 men with hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels greater than 7.5% during the previous 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 6-month change in HbA(1c) level. Secondary outcomes were changes in insulin therapy; blood pressure; and patient reports of medication adherence, diabetes-related support, and emotional distress. INTERVENTION: Patients in the RPS group attended an initial group session to set diabetes-related behavioral goals, receive peer communication skills training, and be paired with another age-matched peer patient. Peers were encouraged to talk weekly using a telephone platform that recorded call occurrence and provided reminders to promote peer contact. These patients could also participate in optional group sessions at 1, 3, and 6 months. Patients in the NCM group attended a 1.5-hour educational session and were assigned to a nurse care manager. RESULTS: Of the 244 patients enrolled, 216 (89%) completed the HbA(1c) assessments and 231 (95%) completed the survey assessments at 6 months. Mean HbA(1c) level decreased from 8.02% to 7.73% (change, -0.29%) in the RPS group and increased from 7.93% to 8.22% (change, 0.29%) in the NCM group. The difference in HbA(1c) change between groups was 0.58% (P = 0.004). Among patients with a baseline HbA(1c) level greater than 8.0%, those in the RPS group had a mean decrease of 0.88%, compared with a 0.07% decrease among those in the NCM group (between-group difference, 0.81%; P < 0.001). Eight patients in the RPS group started insulin therapy, compared with 1 patient in the NCM group (P = 0.020). Groups did not differ in blood pressure, self-reported medication adherence, or diabetes-specific distress, but the RPS group reported improvement in diabetes social support. LIMITATION: The study included only male veterans and lasted only 6 months. CONCLUSION: Reciprocal peer support holds promise as a method for diabetes care management.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Additionally, there is growing evidence for the role of community health workers (71,72), as well as peer (71)(72)(73)(74)(75)(76) and lay leaders (77), in providing ongoing support.”
From 5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes:Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023 (2023) · cites this paper as [73]
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
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
Chobanian, A. V. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.19.2560 · Cited by 25,386
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
Chobanian, A. V., Bakris, G. L., Black, H. R., Cushman, W. C., Green, L. A., Izzo, J. L., Jones, D. W., Materson, B. J., Oparil, S., Wright, J. T., et al. (2003) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/01.hyp.0000107251.49515.c2 · Cited by 13,271
Social Foundations of Thought and Action
Bandura, A. (2002) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446221129.n6 · Cited by 9,948
Turner, R. C., Fox, C., Matthews, McElroy, H. H., Cull, C. A., Holman, R. R., Neil, P., Hadden, D. R., Wright, D., Manley, E., et al. (1998) · The Lancet · Cited by 8,419
Pickering, T. G., Hall, J. E., Appel, L. J., Falkner, B. E., Graves, J., Hill, M. N., Jones, D. W., Kurtz, T., Sheps, S. G., & Roccella, E. J. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000154900.76284.f6 · Cited by 3,985
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy
Kahn, S. E., Haffner, S. M., Heise, M. A., Herman, W. H., Holman, R. R., Jones, N. P., Kravitz, B. G., Lachin, J. M., O'Neill, M. C., Zinman, B., et al. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa066224 · Cited by 2,962
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Dale J, 2008, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD006903
- Doull M, 2007, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD005352
- Lorig KR, 2001, Eff Clin Pract, 4, 256
- 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 · DOI · Paper page
- Knight K, 2005, Am J Manag Care, 11, 242
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014
American Diabetes Association (2014) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc14-s014 · Cited by 4,572
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2013
American Diabetes Association (2013) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc13-s011 · Cited by 4,369
Interventions for enhancing medication adherence
Nieuwlaat, R., Wilczynski, N., Navarro, T., Hobson, N., Jeffery, R., Keepanasseril, A., Agoritsas, T., Mistry, N., Iorio, A., Jack, S., et al. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000011.pub4 · Cited by 2,945
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2011
American Diabetes Association (2011) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc11-s011 · Cited by 2,880
Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012
(2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc12-s011 · Cited by 2,240
Metadata
- Authors
- Heisler, M., Vijan, S., Makki, F., & Piette, J. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2010-10-19
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 507-515
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- PMC
- PMC4117390
- OpenAlex
- W2066345304
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 18.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL085420)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P60DK020572, P30DK092926)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024986)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Keywords
- nursing care management, diabetes self-management, glycemic control, HbA1c, veterans, peer support, insulin therapy, medication adherence, emotional distress, blood pressure, behavioral objectives, resource barriers, diabetes education
- MeSH terms
- Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Insulin, Male, Motivation, Psychotherapy, Group, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Telephone, Treatment Outcome, Self Efficacy, Medication Adherence
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
