Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29454327›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2018

Peer support to improve diabetes care: an implementation evaluation of the Australasian Peers for Progress Diabetes Program.

Zahra Aziz, Michaela A Riddell, Pilvikki Absetz, Margaret Brand, Brian Oldenburg, Australasian Peers for Progress Diabetes Project Investigators

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Education programmes for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Do Peer Support Groups Facilitate Nutrition Information Practice and Nutritional Self-Management in People Living With Type 2 Diabetes?Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

6 authors.

Zahra AzizMelbourne School of Population & Global Health, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. azizz@student.unimelb.edu.au.
Michaela A RiddellDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Pilvikki AbsetzSchool of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, FI-33014, Tampere, Finland.
Margaret BrandDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Brian OldenburgMelbourne School of Population & Global Health, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Australasian Peers for Progress Diabetes Project Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies have now demonstrated the benefits of peer support in promoting diabetes control. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of a group-based, peer support program to improve diabetes self-management and thereby, diabetes control in people with Type 2 Diabetes in Victoria, Australia.

methodsThe intervention program was designed to address four key peer support functions i.e. 1) assistance in daily management, 2) social and emotional support, 3) regular linkage to clinical care, and 4) ongoing and sustained support to assist with the lifelong needs of diabetes self-care management. The intervention participants attended monthly group meetings facilitated by a trained peer leader for 12 months. Data was collected on the intervention's reach, participation, implementation fidelity, groups' effectiveness and participants' perceived support and satisfaction with the intervention. The RE-AIM and PIPE frameworks were used to guide this evaluation.

resultsThe trial reached a high proportion (79%) of its target population through mailed invitations. Out of a total of 441 eligible individuals, 273 (61.9%) were willing to participate. The intervention fidelity was high (92.7%). The proportion of successful participants who demonstrated a reduction in 5 years cardiovascular disease risk score was 65.1 and 44.8% in the intervention and control arm respectively. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the intervention participants stated that the program helped them manage their diabetes on a day to day basis. Overall, attending monthly group meetings provided 'a lot of support' to 57% and 'moderate' support to 34% of the participants.

conclusionPeer support programs are feasible, acceptable and can be used to supplement treatment for patients motivated to improve behaviours related to diabetes. However, program planners need to focus on the participation component in designing future programs. The use of two evaluation frameworks allowed a comprehensive evaluation of the trial from the provider-, participant- and public health perspective. The learnings gained from this evaluation will guide and improve future implementation by improving program feasibility for adoption and acceptability among participants, and will ultimately increase the likelihood of program effectiveness for the participants.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12609000469213 . Registered 16 June 2009.

Indexed as

Peer GroupSelf-Help GroupsAdultAgedCluster AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGroup ProcessesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationProgram EvaluationSelf CareVictoriaImplementation evaluationParticipant-level factorsPeer supportPIPE impact metricProvider-level factorsPublic health impactRE-AIM frameworkSelf-managementType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID29454327
PMCPMC5816559

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.