Effects of Providing Peer Support on Diabetes Management in People With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined the effects of participating in a "train-the-trainer" program and being a peer supporter on metabolic and cognitive/psychological/behavioral parameters in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In response to our invitation, 79 patients with fair glycemic control (HbA1c <8%) agreed to participate in a "train-the-trainer" program to become peer supporters. Of the 59 who completed the program successfully, 33 agreed to be peer supporters ("agreed trainees") and were each assigned to support 10 patients for 1 year, with a voluntary extension period of 3 additional years, while 26 trainees declined to be supporters ("refused trainees"). A group of 60 patients with fair glycemic control who did not attend the training program and were under usual care were selected as a comparison group. The primary outcome was the change in average HbA1c levels for the 3 groups from baseline to 6 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, HbA1c was unchanged in the trainees (at baseline, 7.1 ± 0.3%; at 6 months, 7.1 ± 1.1%) but increased in the comparison group (at baseline, 7.1 ± 0.5%; at 6 months, 7.3 ± 1.1%. P = .02 for between-group comparison). Self-reported self-care activities including diet adherence and foot care improved in the trainees but not the comparison group. After 4 years, HbA1c remained stable among the agreed trainees (at baseline, 7.0 ± 0.2%; at 4 years: 7.2 ± 0.6%), compared with increases in the refused trainees (at baseline, 7.1 ± 0.4%; at 4 years, 7.8 ± 0.8%) and comparison group (at baseline, 7.1 ± 0.5%; at 4 years, 8.1 ± 0.6%. P = .001 for between-group comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes who engaged in providing ongoing peer support to other patients with diabetes improved their self-care while maintaining glycemic control over 4 years.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".