School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Hong Kong Institute of Diabetes and Obesity and Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, China.
Ann Behav Med. 2022 Aug 30;56(9):909-919. doi: 10.1093/abm/kaab114.
Peer support provides varied health benefits, but how it achieves these benefits is not well understood.
Examine a) predictors of participation in peer support interventions for diabetes management, and b) relationship between participation and glycemic control.
Seven peer support interventions funded through Peers for Progress provided pre/post data on 1,746 participants' glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c), contacts with peer supporters as an indicator of participation, health literacy, availability/satisfaction with support for diabetes management from family and clinical team, quality of life (EQ-Index), diabetes distress, depression (PHQ-8), BMI, gender, age, education, and years with diabetes.
Structural equation modeling indicated a) lower levels of available support for diabetes management, higher depression scores, and older age predicted more contacts with peer supporters, and b) more contacts predicted lower levels of final HbA1c as did lower baseline levels of BMI and diabetes distress and fewer years living with diabetes. Parallel effects of contacts on HbA1c, although not statistically significant, were observed among those with baseline HbA1c values > 7.5% or > 9%. Additionally, no, low, moderate, and high contacts showed a significant linear, dose-response relationship with final HbA1c. Baseline and covariate-adjusted, final HbA1c was 8.18% versus 7.86% for those with no versus high contacts.
Peer support reached/benefitted those at greater disadvantage. Less social support for dealing with diabetes and higher PHQ-8 scores predicted greater participation in peer support. Participation in turn predicted lower HbA1c across levels of baseline HbA1c, and in a dose-response relationship across levels of participation.
同伴支持可带来多种健康益处,但人们对其实现这些益处的机制仍了解不足。
检验 a)糖尿病管理中同伴支持干预措施参与的预测因素,以及 b)参与度与血糖控制之间的关系。
通过“同伴促进进步计划”资助的 7 项同伴支持干预措施,收集了 1746 名参与者的血糖控制(糖化血红蛋白)、与同伴支持者的接触情况(作为参与度的指标)、健康素养、家庭和临床团队对糖尿病管理支持的可及性/满意度、生活质量(EQ-Index)、糖尿病困扰、抑郁(PHQ-8)、体重指数、性别、年龄、教育程度和糖尿病患病年限的数据,这些参与者在干预前和干预后都接受了数据收集。
结构方程模型表明:a)对糖尿病管理的支持较低、抑郁得分较高和年龄较大与与同伴支持者的接触次数较多有关,b)接触次数较多与最终糖化血红蛋白水平较低有关,这与较低的基线 BMI 和糖尿病困扰水平以及较短的糖尿病患病年限有关。在基线糖化血红蛋白水平 > 7.5%或 > 9%的参与者中,接触对糖化血红蛋白的影响虽然不具有统计学意义,但也观察到了类似的效果。此外,接触次数与最终糖化血红蛋白之间呈显著线性剂量反应关系。在未接触与高接触组中,调整了基线和协变量后的最终糖化血红蛋白水平分别为 8.18%和 7.86%。
同伴支持覆盖到了更多处于不利地位的人群。对处理糖尿病的社会支持较少和 PHQ-8 得分较高预示着更多地参与同伴支持。参与反过来预测了在不同基线糖化血红蛋白水平以及不同参与水平上糖化血红蛋白水平的降低。