Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
J Diabetes. 2020 Apr;12(4):315-338. doi: 10.1111/1753-0407.12999. Epub 2019 Dec 6.
This review seeks to identify (a) the various components and process outcomes of type 2 diabetes peer support (PS) interventions and (b) the measures implemented to monitor intervention fidelity and evaluate outcomes in these studies.
The MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to May 2019. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from eligible articles via the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist (why, what, who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, and how well).
Twenty-three trials were included. The total number of participants was 7178. Most interventions were in primary care. Although face-to-face was the most common modality of contact, rates of contact were highest for telephone. Potential peer leaders (PLs) were identified primarily through recommendations from health professionals, based on their communication skills, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and coaching interest. PLs were mostly female, university educated, and had a long history of diabetes (≥ 10 years). PL training varied significantly in length and content; the two most frequent topics were communication skills and diabetes knowledge. Although several studies implemented methods to evaluate "intervention fidelity," only few rigorously assessed the two key components of fidelity, "adherence" and "competence," through audio- and video-taping or direct observations.
The impact of PS on participants' health outcomes is well investigated; however, the implementation and evaluation strategies vary significantly across these studies. In the present review, we define the various components of PS interventions and propose suggestions for enhancing the implementation and evaluation of future PS models.
本综述旨在确定(a)2 型糖尿病同伴支持(PS)干预措施的各个组成部分和过程结果,以及(b)为监测干预一致性和评估这些研究结果而实施的措施。
从建库到 2019 年 5 月,我们检索了 MEDLINE、PubMed、EMBASE(医学文摘数据库)、CENTRAL(考克兰对照试验中心注册库)、CINAHL(护理与联合健康文献累积索引)和 PsycINFO 数据库。两名审查员通过干预描述和复制模板(TIDieR)清单(为什么、什么、谁提供、如何、在哪里、何时以及多少、定制、修改以及效果如何)独立筛选和提取合格文章中的数据。
纳入了 23 项试验,共有 7178 名参与者。大多数干预措施都在初级保健中进行。尽管面对面是最常见的接触方式,但电话的接触率最高。潜在的同伴导师(PLs)主要是通过卫生专业人员的推荐、基于他们的沟通技巧、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)和辅导兴趣来确定的。PLs 大多为女性,受过大学教育,且患有糖尿病(≥10 年)的时间较长。PL 培训在长度和内容上差异很大,最常见的两个主题是沟通技巧和糖尿病知识。尽管有几项研究实施了评估“干预一致性”的方法,但只有少数研究通过音频和视频录制或直接观察,严格评估了一致性的两个关键组成部分,即“依从性”和“能力”。
PS 对参与者健康结果的影响已得到充分研究;然而,这些研究中的实施和评估策略差异很大。在本综述中,我们确定了 PS 干预措施的各个组成部分,并提出了加强未来 PS 模式实施和评估的建议。