"Tis Better to Give Than to Receive?" Health-related Benefits of Delivering Peer Support in Type 2 Diabetes: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed-methods Study.

OBJECTIVES: Existing peer support literature in diabetes has focussed predominantly on the health impact it has on the beneficiaries rather than the benefactors. In this mixed-methods study, we examined the effect of delivering peer support (vs receiving) on glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and diabetes distress (DD) at 3 and 12 months as part of a larger diabetes self-management support randomized controlled trial. Maintenance or improvement of outcomes was expected. We also assessed peer leaders' experiences with the program. METHODS: We utilized a sequential explanatory mixed-methods research design that included 58 adults with diabetes (i.e. peer leaders) who completed a 30-hour training program. Peer leaders (n=52) were matched with participants (adults with type 2 diabetes) and invited to undergo assessments at baseline, 3 months and 12 months. Primary clinical and psychosocial outcomes included A1C and DD, respectively. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular risk factors and depressive symptoms. After the intervention, 17 peer leaders participated in semistructured interviews about their experience. RESULTS: Peer leaders had a mean age of 57.5±11 years and a long history of diabetes (13.9±11 years); over half were male (53.8%) and married/partnered (55.8%). At baseline, peer leaders were at target for A1C (7.0±0.9% [53±10 mmol/mol]) and reported a low level of DD (1.67±0.52). Of the 43 (82.7%) peer leaders who completed the 12-month study, A1C and DD remained stable over 12 months. Secondary outcomes also remained within the normal range from the start to the end of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Delivering peer support may help maintain glycemic control and DD over the long term.

Profiling "Success": Demographic and Personality Predictors of Effective Peer Leaders in a Diabetes Self-management Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The sociodemographic and personality profiles of effective peer leaders in the context of diabetes self-management interventions are poorly understood. In this study, we explored the demographic and personality characteristics of peer leaders participating in a 12-month, telephone-based type 2 diabetes self-management intervention. METHODS: We used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods research design and recruited 52 peer leaders. Thirty-seven peer leaders had at least 1 participant complete both the baseline and the 12-month assessments. Eligible peer leader candidates were English-speaking adults (≥21 years of age) with diabetes and a self-reported glycated hemoglobin (A1C) level of ≤8% who had access to a phone and transportation and were willing to attend a 30-hour training program. Peer leaders completed a self-report survey assessing sociodemographic characteristics and a Mini-International Personality Item Pool scale measuring the "Big 5" personality traits. After the intervention, 17 peer leaders participated in semistructured interviews on their program experience. We categorized peer leaders as effective if their participants sustained or improved their A1C and diabetes distress (DD) scores from baseline to 12 months, and as ineffective if their participants worsened on any of these parameters. RESULTS: Our cohort scored highest on agreeableness and lowest on neuroticism. Twenty peer leaders were considered effective, most of whom were male, married, employed and educated. They also had significantly lower mean DD levels (p=0.02) and a higher extroversion score (p=0.03) at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Extroversion emerged as the best personality predictor of peer leader effectiveness. These results, in combination with interview responses, were used to produce a peer leader selection model.

Out of the mouths of Peer Leaders: Perspectives on how to improve a telephone-based peer support intervention in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of peer leaders with respect to delivering core components of a 12-month, telephone-based peer support intervention in type 2 diabetes within a tertiary-care setting. METHODS: Seventeen peer leaders were recruited and interviewed. Interviews lasted approximately 20 to 45 min, were audio-taped, and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analysed by two team members using the qualitative descriptive approach. FINDINGS: Peer leaders reported mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationships with participants. They encountered challenges in maintaining regular contact with participants and in motivating them to make lifestyle changes. To improve the programme, peer leaders suggested having more frequent - but shorter - training sessions and reducing the diabetes education component of the training programme. To enhance the intervention fidelity and retention rate, they recommended matching peer leaders to participants on more meaningful variables (e.g. diabetes-related commonalities, personality, life experiences, etc.) beyond just gender, geographic proximity and availability. They also requested more frequent face-to-face contacts with participants (Modality of Contact), and additional ongoing support from the research team. CONCLUSION: Peer leaders were satisfied with the intervention design. However, future studies may consider more comprehensive peer leader-matching algorithms and increased opportunities for in-person communication modalities. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT02804620.

Peer support interventions in type 2 diabetes: Review of components and process outcomes.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.