Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31027477›Full record

Trial reportThe Diabetes educator2019

Effectiveness of Technologically Enhanced Peer Support in Improving Glycemic Management Among Predominantly African American, Low-Income Adults With Diabetes.

Michele Heisler, Hwajung Choi, Rebecca Mase, Judith A Long, Pamela J Reeves

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Diabetes educator, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Using Peer Support to Prevent Diabetes: Results of a Pragmatic RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michele HeislerDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0002-6889-2063
Hwajung ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Rebecca MaseDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Judith A LongVA Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Medical Center and Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion and University of Pennsylvania Department of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Pamela J ReevesJohn D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan.
University of Michigan · USJohn D. Dingell VA Medical Center · USPhiladelphia VA Medical Center · US

Funding

Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the study was to examine whether a peer coaching intervention is more effective in improving clinical outcomes in diabetes when enhanced with e-health educational tools than peer coaching alone.

methodsThe effectiveness of peer coaches who used an individually tailored, interactive, web-based tool (iDecide) was compared with peer coaches with no access to the tool. Two hundred and ninety Veterans Affairs patients with A1C ≥8.0% received a 6-month intervention with an initial session with a fellow patient trained to be a peer coach, followed by weekly phone calls to discuss behavioral goals. Participants were randomized to coaches who used iDecide or coaches who used nontailored educational materials at the initial session. Outcomes were A1C (primary), blood pressure, and diabetes social support (secondary) at 6 and 12 months.

resultsTwo hundred and fifty-five participants (88%) completed 6-month and 237 (82%) 12-month follow-up. Ninety-eight percent were men, and 63% were African American. Participants in both groups improved A1C values (>-0.6%, P < .001) at 6 months and maintained these gains at 12-month follow-up ( >-0.5%, P < .005). Diabetes social support was improved at both 6 and 12 months ( P < .01). There were no changes in blood pressure.

conclusionsClinical gains achieved through a volunteer peer coach program were not increased by the addition of a tailored e-health educational tool.

Indexed as

AgedBlack or African AmericanBlood PressureDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMentoringMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPeer GroupPovertySelf CareSocial SupportTelemedicineGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, human

Identifiers

PMID31027477
PMCPMC6750000
OpenAlexW2940599281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.