CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Peer Mentoring and Financial Incentives to Improve Glucose Control in African American Veterans: A Randomized Trial

Open access
Long, Judith A., Jahnle, Erica C., Richardson, Diane M., Loewenstein, George, Volpp, Kevin G.·2012·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-156-6-201203200-00004PMC PMC3475415
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Compared with white persons, African Americans have a greater incidence of diabetes, decreased control, and higher rates of microvascular complications. A peer mentorship model could be a scalable approach to improving control in this population and reducing disparities in diabetic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether peer mentors or financial incentives are superior to usual care in helping African American veterans decrease their hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels. DESIGN: A 6-month randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01125956) SETTING: Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PATIENTS: African American veterans aged 50 to 70 years with persistently poor diabetes control. INTERVENTION: 118 patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: usual care, a peer mentoring group, and a financial incentives group. Usual care patients were notified of their starting HbA(1c) level and recommended goals for HbA(1c). Those in the peer mentoring group were assigned a mentor who formerly had poor glycemic control but now had good control (HbA(1c) level ≤7.5%). The mentor was asked to talk with the patient at least once per week. Peer mentors were matched by race, sex, and age. Patients in the financial incentive group could earn $100 by decreasing their HbA(1c) level by 1% and $200 by decreasing it by 2% or to an HbA(1c) level of 6.5%. MEASUREMENTS: Change in HbA(1c) level at 6 months. RESULTS: Mentors and mentees talked the most in the first month (mean calls, 4; range, 0 to 30), but calls decreased to a mean of 2 calls (range, 0 to 10) by the sixth month. Levels of HbA(1c) decreased from 9.9% to 9.8% in the control group, from 9.8% to 8.7% in the peer mentor group, and from 9.5% to 9.1% in the financial incentive group. Mean change in HbA(1c) level from baseline to 6 months relative to control was -1.07% (95% CI, -1.84% to -0.31%) in the peer mentor group and -0.45% (CI, -1.23% to 0.32%) in the financial incentive group. LIMITATION: The study included only veterans and lasted only 6 months. CONCLUSION: Peer mentorship improved glucose control in a cohort of African American veterans with diabetes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging Roybal Center.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-156-6-201203200-00004

Cites

54 of 54 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

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.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Pleis JR, 2009, Vital Health Stat 10, 1
  2. Shacter HE, 2009, Ethn Dis, 19, 121

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 278

Related

Metadata

Authors
Long, J. A., Jahnle, E. C., Richardson, D. M., Loewenstein, G., & Volpp, K. G.
Affiliations
Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2012-03-20
Volume
156
Issue
6
Pages
416-424
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/0003-4819-156-6-201203200-00004
PMC
PMC3475415
OpenAlex
W2115695512
Cited by
278
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 11
FWCI
22.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/text-and-data-mining (tdm)
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P30AG034546)
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 › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
peer mentoring, financial incentives, glycemic control, HbA1c, type 2 diabetes, African American veterans, diabetes disparities, peer mentors, diabetes self-management, behavioral interventions, Veterans Affairs health care, microvascular complications
MeSH terms
Aged, Black or African American, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Mentors, Middle Aged, Reward, Social Support, Telephone, Veterans

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