Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34129024›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Peer-to-Peer Support and Changes in Health and Well-being in Older Adults Over Time.

Rebecca J Schwei, Scott Hetzel, KyungMann Kim, Jane Mahoney, Kali DeYoung, Jenni Frumer, Ross P Lanzafame, Jenny Madlof, Alis Simpson, Erika Zambrano-Morales and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Peer Support Activities for Veterans, Serving Members, and Their Families: Results of a Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca J SchweiBerbeeWalsh Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison.
Scott HetzelDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison.
KyungMann KimDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison.
Jane MahoneyDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison.
Kali DeYoungBioTel Research, Rochester, New York.
Jenni FrumerNext Generation of Holocaust Survivors Inc, Boynton Beach, Florida.
Ross P LanzafameCommunity Place of Greater Rochester, Rochester, New York.
Jenny MadlofAlpert Jewish Family Service of West Palm Beach, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Alis SimpsonBrockport Research Institute, Brockport, New York.
Erika Zambrano-MoralesCalifornia State University, Los Angeles.
Elizabeth A JacobsDepartment of Medicine and Population Health, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USCalifornia State University Los Angeles · USSUNY Brockport · USThe University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Literature on peer-to-peer (P2P) programs suggests they improve health and well-being of older adults. Analysis from a previous study showed P2P to be associated with higher rates of hospitalization and no significant differences in rates of emergency department or urgent care visits; however, it is not known whether measures of health and well-being varied by group over time. Objective: To compare the association between receiving P2P support and secondary outcomes (ie, health status, quality of life, and depressive and anxiety symptoms) with receiving standard community services (SCS) over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among a volunteer sample of older adults (≥65 years) who were new to P2P or were already receiving P2P and a corresponding control group. Participants were matched between groups on age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The study was conducted from March 2015 to December 2017 at 3 community-based organizations that delivered P2P in California, Florida, and New York. Data analysis was performed from October 2018 through May 2020. Exposures: P2P support, provided by trained older adult volunteers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mental and physical components of the health status and quality of life measure and depressive and anxiety symptoms were collected over 12 months. The hypothesis was that older adults receiving P2P support would maintain higher health status and quality of life than the SCS group. Results: A total of 503 participants were screened, 456 participants were enrolled and had baseline data, and 8 participants only had baseline information with no follow-up data, leaving 448 participants (231 [52%] in the SCS group; 217 [48%] in the P2P group; 363 [81%] women; mean [SD] age, 80 [9] years). The P2P group had improvements in mental health (change at 12 months, 1.1 points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 3.0 points) and physical health (change at 12 months, 1.0 points; 95% CI, -0.7 to 2.8 points). However, the difference of differences between the 2 groups did not differ significantly from baseline to 12 months (mental health: 0.2 points; 95% CI -2.3 to 2.7 points; physical health: 1.7 points; 95% CI, -0.6 to 3.9 points). The P2P and SCS groups had a statistically significant difference of differences in anxiety symptoms of 0.36 points (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.61 points). There were no significant differences in depressive symptoms or mental and physical components of the health status and quality of life. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that receiving P2P support did not slow the decline of health and well-being in older adults compared with those who received SCS. Baseline imbalance in key characteristics, even after adjusting for the imbalance using the propensity score method, may explain the results. Randomized trials are needed.

Indexed as

Health StatusPeer InfluenceAgedAged, 80 and overAgingCaliforniaCohort StudiesFemaleFloridaFrail ElderlyHumansMaleNew YorkPersons with DisabilitiesQuality of LifeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID34129024
PMCPMC8207241
OpenAlexW3167703965

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.