↓ Skip to main content

Peer support to improve diabetes care: an implementation evaluation of the Australasian Peers for Progress Diabetes Program

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Peer support to improve diabetes care: an implementation evaluation of the Australasian Peers for Progress Diabetes Program
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5148-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zahra Aziz, Michaela A. Riddell, Pilvikki Absetz, Margaret Brand, Brian Oldenburg, On behalf of the Australasian Peers for Progress Diabetes Project Investigators

Abstract

Several studies have now demonstrated the benefits of peer support in promoting diabetes control. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of a group-based, peer support program to improve diabetes self-management and thereby, diabetes control in people with Type 2 Diabetes in Victoria, Australia. The intervention program was designed to address four key peer support functions i.e. 1) assistance in daily management, 2) social and emotional support, 3) regular linkage to clinical care, and 4) ongoing and sustained support to assist with the lifelong needs of diabetes self-care management. The intervention participants attended monthly group meetings facilitated by a trained peer leader for 12 months. Data was collected on the intervention's reach, participation, implementation fidelity, groups' effectiveness and participants' perceived support and satisfaction with the intervention. The RE-AIM and PIPE frameworks were used to guide this evaluation. The trial reached a high proportion (79%) of its target population through mailed invitations. Out of a total of 441 eligible individuals, 273 (61.9%) were willing to participate. The intervention fidelity was high (92.7%). The proportion of successful participants who demonstrated a reduction in 5 years cardiovascular disease risk score was 65.1 and 44.8% in the intervention and control arm respectively. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the intervention participants stated that the program helped them manage their diabetes on a day to day basis. Overall, attending monthly group meetings provided 'a lot of support' to 57% and 'moderate' support to 34% of the participants. Peer support programs are feasible, acceptable and can be used to supplement treatment for patients motivated to improve behaviours related to diabetes. However, program planners need to focus on the participation component in designing future programs. The use of two evaluation frameworks allowed a comprehensive evaluation of the trial from the provider-, participant- and public health perspective. The learnings gained from this evaluation will guide and improve future implementation by improving program feasibility for adoption and acceptability among participants, and will ultimately increase the likelihood of program effectiveness for the participants. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12609000469213 . Registered 16 June 2009.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 248 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Researcher 17 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 6%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 97 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 18%
Psychology 15 6%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 101 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,921,535
of 23,462,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,351
of 15,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,928
of 331,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#147
of 303 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,462,326 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 303 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.