Peer-Led, Empowerment-Based Approach to Self-Management Efforts in Diabetes (PLEASED): A Randomized Controlled Trial in an African American Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared a 3-month diabetes self-management education (DSME) program followed by a 12-month peer support intervention with a 3-month DSME program alone in terms of initial and sustained improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes were risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes distress, and social support. METHODS: We randomized 106 community-dwelling African American adults with type 2 diabetes to a 3-month DSME program followed by 12 months of weekly group sessions and supplementary telephone support delivered by peer leaders or to a 3-month DSME program with no follow-up peer support. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 3, 9, and 15 months. RESULTS: No changes in HbA1c were observed at 3 months or at 15 months for either group. The peer support group either sustained improvement in key CVD risk factors or stayed the same while the control group worsened at 15 months. At 15 months, the peer-support group had significantly lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (-15 mg/dL, P = .03), systolic blood pressure (-10 mm Hg, P = .01), diastolic blood pressure (-8.3 mm Hg, P = .001), and body mass index (-0.8 kg/m(2), P = .032) than the DSME-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of African American adults, an initial DSME program, whether or not followed by 12 months of peer support, had no effect on glycemic control. Participants in the peer-support arm of the trial did, however, experience significant improvements in some CVD risk factors or stay approximately the same while the control group declined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".