ArticlePLOS global public health2024
A rapid systematic review of the effect of health or peer volunteers for diabetes self-management: Synthesizing evidence to guide social prescribing.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social prescribing is a model of care, usually in the community-setting, which aims to address people's unmet social needs. Volunteers support primary health care and community-based care in non-medical roles. However, few studies focus on volunteers in social prescribing, therefore, aimed to synthesize the effect of health or peer volunteer-led interventions on psychosocial and behavioural outcomes for middle-aged and older adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) to inform future work for volunteering in social prescribing. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and searched six databases and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed studies from 2013+ (last search May 16, 2024). We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from all languages, and synthesized data using the Cochrane's Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines; and assessed risk of bias using the "Risk of Bias 2 Tool". We identified nine RCTs (reported in 10 publications). Interventions aimed to promote self-management of T2DM, and study duration ranged from one to 46 months. Training for volunteers varied between one to 32 hours, and most volunteers were offered a stipend. For psychosocial outcomes, only one outcome on social support favoured the intervention group, with the remaining outcomes reporting no differences between study groups. For behaviour, six outcomes (from three studies) favoured the intervention group, and for three outcomes there were no differences between study groups. In conclusion, volunteers bring a unique perspective to health interventions, but volunteer training, matching and retention, as well as intervention mode and duration, and geographical context need to be thoughtfully considered as important implementation factors. This work generates ideas for future studies focused on volunteers and T2DM management and social prescribing. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD42023453506.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.