From clinic to community: A randomized controlled trial of a peer support model for adults with type 2 diabetes from specialty care settings in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To examine the impact of a 12‐month peer‐led diabetes self‐management support intervention delivered via telephone amongst adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from specialty care settings in British Columbia (BC). Methods One‐hundred ninety‐six adults with T2D were randomly assigned to either a 12‐month Peer‐Led, Empowerment‐based, Approach, to Self‐management Efforts in Diabetes (PLEASED) intervention or a usual care condition. PLEASED involved weekly telephone contacts from a peer leader (PL) in the first 3 months followed by bi‐weekly telephone contacts in the last 9 months. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 3 and 12 months. The primary outcome was HbA 1c ; secondary outcomes included diabetes distress (DD), ApoB, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), body mass index, waist circumference and depressive symptoms. Results No within or between group changes were observed for HbA 1c at 3 or 12 months. However, amongst participants with HbA 1c ≥ 69 mmol/mol (8.5%), the PLEASED group significantly lowered their HbA 1c at 12 months [−11.7 mmol/mol (−1.07%); 95% CI: −20.7, −2.5 (−1.89, −0.23); p = 0.016] compared to usual care. Amongst secondary outcomes, within‐group improvements in overall DD were found at 3 months (−0.21; 95% CI: −0.35, −0.08; p = 0.002) for the PLEASED group and at 12 months for both groups (PLEASED: −0.35; 95% CI: −0.49, −0.21; p < 0.001 and control: −0.33; 95% CI: −0.47, −0.19; p < 0.001), however, no between‐group differences were observed. The PLEASED group improved systolic BP at 12 months (−5.4 mm Hg; 95% CI: −10.0, −0.8; p = 0.023) compared to usual care. Conclusions Participation in a peer support intervention in diabetes delivered via telephone leads to long‐term improvements in HbA1c amongst high‐risk adults with T2D living in BC. Trial registration: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NT02804620).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".