MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405940881 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0004071

A rapid systematic review of the effect of health or peer volunteers for diabetes self-management: Synthesizing evidence to guide social prescribing

2024· article· en· W4405940881 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Iverson, Hadil Alfares, Gurkirat Singh Nijjar, Jeffrey Wong, Elham Esfandiari, Lin Ma, Robert J. Petrella, Bobbi Symes, Anna M. Chudyk, Maureen C. Ashe

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaFraser HealthBurnaby HospitalTrinity Western UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicinePsychologyDiabetes mellitusMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.306
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.306
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.023
Bibliometrics0.0300.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207