Trial reportJournal of behavioral medicine2014
Relative contributions of naturalistic and constructed support: two studies of women with type 2 diabetes.
Trial report in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cluster Randomized Trial of Diabetes Group Visits in Community Health Centers across the Midwest.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2024Trial
- Picture Good Health: A Church-Based Self-Management Intervention Among Latino Adults with Diabetes.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Lifestyle Interventions for Treatment and Remission of Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes in Adults: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Article
- Family interventions to improve diabetes outcomes for adults.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Do distinct sources of social support have differential effects on health? Although previous research has contrasted family and friend support (naturalistic support), research on the relative effects of naturalistic support and constructed support (e.g., support groups) is extremely rare. Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes were conducted that assessed the independent effects of naturalistic and constructed support on physical activity and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were women diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from the intervention arms of two randomized controlled trials: primarily European American women (Study 1; N = 163) and exclusively Hispanic women (Study 2; N = 142). Measures assessed physical activity, HbA1c, and friend and family support at baseline and at 6 months, as well as group support after 6 months of intervention. In Study 1, only group support was related to increases in physical activity (ΔR(2) = .036). In Study 2, group support and family support showed independent effects on increases in physical activity (ΔR(2) = .047 and .060, respectively). Also, group support was related to decreases in HbA1c in Study 1 (ΔR(2) = .031) and Study 2 (ΔR(2) = .065). Overall, constructed (group) support was related to outcomes most consistently, but naturalistic (family) support showed some independent relation to physical activity improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.