Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23404203›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2013

Peer coaching to improve diabetes self-management: which patients benefit most?

David Moskowitz, David H Thom, Danielle Hessler, Amireh Ghorob, Thomas Bodenheimer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Peer Support for the Hardly Reached: A Systematic Review.American journal of public health · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Mediators and Moderators of Improvements in Medication Adherence.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2017
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David MoskowitzDepartment of Ambulatory and Preventive Medicine, Alameda County Medical Center, 1411 East 31st St, Oakland, CA, 94602, USA. dmoskowitz@acmedctr.org
David H Thom
Danielle Hessler
Amireh Ghorob
Thomas Bodenheimer
University of California, San Francisco · USAlameda County Public Health Department · US

Funding

PHS HHS D55HP05165
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer health coaching is an effective method of enhancing self-management support in patients with diabetes. It is unclear whether peer health coaching is equally beneficial to all patients with poor glycemic control, or is most effective for subgroups of patients.

objectiveTo examine whether the effect of peer health coaching on hemoglobin A1c (A1c) is modified by characteristics that are known to be associated with diabetes control.

designSub-group analyses of randomized control trial.

participantsTwo hundred and ninety nine patients with diabetes receiving care in public health clinics who participated in a randomized controlled trial of peer health coaches. MAIN MEASURES: We examined whether the association between study group and change in A1c was modified by differences in patients' demographic, behavioral or psychosocial characteristics. Analyses were adjusted for co-variables associated with change in A1c. KEY

resultsThe effect of coaching on patient A1c was modified by patients' level of self-management and degree of medication adherence as baseline (p=.02, and p=.03 respectively in adjusted models). For participants with "low" self-management (one standard deviation below the mean score), the usual care group experienced a slight increase in A1c (0.3 %), while the health coaching group experienced a decrease (-0.9 %). For participants with "high" self-management (one standard deviation above the mean score), both groups experienced a similar decrease in A1c (usual care group: -1.0 %; health coaching group: -1.1 %). Participants with "low" medication adherence in the usual care group experienced an increase in A1c (0.5 %), while the health coaching group experienced a decrease (-0.8 %). Participants with "high" medication adherence experienced similar decreases (usual care group: -1.1 %; health coaching group: -1.3 %).

conclusionPeer health coaching had a larger effect on lowering A1c in patients with low levels of medication adherence and self-management support than in patients with higher levels. Peer health coaching interventions may be most effective if targeted to high-risk patients with diabetes with poor glycemic control and with poor self-management and medication adherence.

Indexed as

Peer GroupAdultAgedCohort StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf CareTreatment OutcomeGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, human

Identifiers

PMID23404203
PMCPMC3682027
OpenAlexW2027591529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.