Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25785452›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

Impact of community based peer support in type 2 diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial of individual and/or group approaches.

David Simmons, A Toby Prevost, Chris Bunn, Daniel Holman, Richard A Parker, Simon Cohn, Sarah Donald, Charlotte A M Paddison, Candice Ward, Peter Robins and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

11 authors.

David SimmonsInstitute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
A Toby PrevostPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Chris BunnInstitute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Daniel HolmanPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Richard A ParkerPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Simon CohnPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Sarah DonaldInstitute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Charlotte A M PaddisonPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Candice WardInstitute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Peter RobinsInstitute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Jonathan GraffyPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0610-22311
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes peer support, where one person with diabetes helps guide and support others, has been proposed as a way to improve diabetes management. We have tested whether different diabetes peer support strategies can improve metabolic and/or psychological outcomes.

methodsPeople with type 2 diabetes (n = 1,299) were invited to participate as either 'peer' or 'peer support facilitator' (PSF) in a 2x2 factorial randomised cluster controlled trial across rural communities (130 clusters) in England. Peer support was delivered over 8-12 months by trained PSFs, supported by monthly meetings with a diabetes educator. Primary end point was HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, diabetes distress, blood pressure, waist, total cholesterol and weight. Outcome assessors and investigators were masked to arm allocation. Main factors were 1:1 or group intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat adjusting for baseline.

resultsThe 4 arms were well matched (Group n = 330, 1:1(individual) n = 325, combined n = 322, control n = 322); 1035 (79·7%) completed the mid-point postal questionnaire and 1064 (81·9%) had a final HbA1c. A limitation was that although 92.6% PSFs and peers were in telephone contact, only 61.4% of intervention participants attended a face to face session. Mean baseline HbA1c was 57 mmol/mol (7·4%), with no significant change across arms. Follow up systolic blood pressure was 2·3 mm Hg (0.6 to 4.0) lower among those allocated group peer-support and 3·0 mm Hg (1.1 to 5.0) lower if the group support was attended at least once. There was no impact on other outcomes by intention to treat or significant differences between arms in self-reported adherence or medication.

conclusionsGroup diabetes peer support over 8-12 months was associated with a small improvement in blood pressure but no other significant outcomes. Long term benefits should be investigated.

trial registrationISRCTN.com ISRCTN6696362166963621.

Indexed as

Peer GroupResidence CharacteristicsSocial SupportAgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25785452
PMCPMC4364716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.