Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21324992›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011

Peer support for patients with type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial.

S M Smith, G Paul, A Kelly, D L Whitford, E O'Shea, T O'Dowd

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02804620 (From Clinic to Community), which is not on this map. Cited by 76 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02804620 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

From Clinic to Community: Using Peer Support as a Transition Model for Improving Long-term Diabetes-related Health Outcomes

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2014 to 2018Enrolled196ConditionsPeer Support, Diabetes Self-managementArmsPeer-led, Empowerment-based Approach to Self-management efforts in Diabetes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Guideline
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Effectiveness of group medical visits for improving diabetes care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2013
    Pooled it

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

S M SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. susmith@tcd.ie
G Paul
A Kelly
D L Whitford
E O'Shea
T O'Dowd
Trinity College Dublin · IERoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Bahrain · BH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo test the effectiveness of peer support for patients with type 2 diabetes.

designCluster randomised controlled.

setting20 general practices in the east of the Republic of Ireland.

participants395 patients (192 in intervention group, 203 in control group) and 29 peer supporters with type 2 diabetes.

interventionAll practices introduced a standardised diabetes care system. The peer support intervention ran over a two year period and contained four elements: the recruitment and training of peer supporters, nine group meetings led by peer supporters in participant's own general practice, and a retention plan for the peer supporters.

main outcome measuresHbA(1c); cholesterol concentration; systolic blood pressure; and wellbeing score.

resultsThere was no difference between intervention and control patients at baseline. All practices and 85% (337) of patients were followed up. At two year follow-up, there were no significant differences in HbA(1c) (mean difference -0.08%, 95% confidence interval -0.35% to 0.18%), systolic blood pressure (-3.9 mm Hg, -8.9 to 1.1 mm Hg), total cholesterol concentration (-0.03 mmol/L, -0.28 to 0.22 mmol/L), or wellbeing scores (-0.7, -2.3 to 0.8). While there was a trend towards decreases in the proportion of patients with poorly controlled risk factors at follow-up, particularly for systolic blood pressure (52% (87/166) >130 mm Hg in intervention v 61% (103/169) >130 mm Hg in control), these changes were not significant. The process evaluation indicated that the intervention was generally delivered as intended, though 18% (35) of patients in the intervention group never attended any group meetings.

conclusionsA group based peer support intervention is feasible in general practice settings, but the intervention was not effective when targeted at all patients with type 2 diabetes. While there was a trend towards improvements of clinical outcomes, the results do not support the widespread adoption of peer support. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42541690.

Indexed as

Peer GroupSocial SupportAgedBlood PressureCholesterolCluster AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsSelf-Help GroupsTherapeuticsCholesterolGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID21324992
PMCPMC3039437
OpenAlexW2106362509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.