Susan G. Elliott

Peer support by persons affected with diabetes improves peer supporter’s diabetes self-management skills. Peer support interventions by individuals who have diabetes or are affected by diabetes have been shown to improve glycemic control; however, its effects on other cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with diabetes are unknown. We aimed to estimate the effect of peer support interventions on cardiovascular disease risk factors other than glycemic control in adults with diabetes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing peer support interventions to a control condition in adults affected by diabetes that measured any cardiovascular disease risk factors [Body Mass Index, smoking, diet, physical activity, cholesterol level, glucose control and blood pressure]. Quality was assessed by Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. We calculated standardized mean difference effect sizes using random effects models. We retrieved 438 citations from multiple databases including OVID MEDLINE, Cochrane database and Scopus, and author searches. Of 233 abstracts reviewed, 16 articles met inclusion criteria. A random effects model in a total of 3243 participants showed a positive effect of peer support interventions on systolic BP with a pooled effect size of 2.07 mmHg (CI 0.35 mmHg to 3.79 mmHg, p = 0.02); baseline pooled systolic blood pressure was 137 mmHg. There was a non-significant effect of peer support interventions on diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index, diet and physical activity. Cardiovascular disease risk factors other than glycemic control outcomes were secondary outcomes in most studies and baseline values were normal or mildly elevated. Only one study reported smoking outcomes. We found a small (2 mmHg) positive effect of peer support interventions on systolic blood pressure in adults with diabetes whose baseline blood pressure was on average minimally elevated. Additional studies need to be conducted to further understand the effect of peer support interventions on high-risk cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with diabetes.

PURPOSE Peer support intervention trials have shown varying effects on glycemic control. We aimed to estimate the effect of peer support interventions delivered by people affected by diabetes (those with the disease or a caregiver) on hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) levels in adults. METHODS We searched multiple databases from 1960 to November 2015, including Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Scopus. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with diabetes receiving peer support interventions compared with otherwise similar care. Seventeen of 205 retrieved studies were eligible for inclusion. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) of change in HbA_1c level from baseline between groups using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were predefined. RESULTS Seventeen studies (3 cluster RCTs, 14 RCTs) with 4,715 participants showed an improvement in pooled HbA_1c level with an SMD of 0.121 (95% CI, 0.026–0.217; P = .01; I² = 60.66%) in the peer support intervention group compared with the control group; this difference translated to an improvement in HbA_1c level of 0.24% (95% CI, 0.05%–0.43%). Peer support interventions showed an HbA_1c improvement of 0.48% (95% CI, 0.25%–0.70%; P <.001; I² = 17.12%) in the subset of studies with predominantly Hispanic participants and 0.53% (95% CI, 0.32%–0.73%; P <.001; I² = 9.24%) in the subset of studies with predominantly minority participants; both were clinically relevant. In sensitivity analysis excluding cluster RCTs, the overall effect size changed little. CONCLUSIONS Peer support interventions for diabetes overall achieved a statistically significant but minor improvement in HbA_1c levels. These interventions may, however, be particularly effective in improving glycemic control for people from minority groups, especially those of Hispanic ethnicity.

To synthesize findings from previous studies assessing information needs of primary care patients on the Internet and other information sources in a primary care setting. A systematic review of studies was conducted with a comprehensive search in multiple databases including OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus. The most common information needs among patients were information about an illness or medical condition and treatment methods, while the most common information sources were the Internet and patients’ physicians. Overall, patients tend to prefer the Internet for the ease of access to information, while they trust their physicians more for their clinical expertise and experience. Barriers to information access via the Internet include the following: socio-demographic variables such as age, ethnicity, income, education, and occupation; information search skills; and reliability of health information. Conclusion: Further research is warranted to assess how to create accurate and reliable health information sources for both Internet and non-Internet users.

A number of marginalized communities receive inadequate attention in the extensive body of existing research on informal caregivers; this is particularly true of the sexual and gender minority (SGM) community. This article features a review of the evidence regarding the experiences of SGMs involved in the informal care of chronically ill friends or family members and examines the specific research strategies that have been involved in developing knowledge in this area. The review found that the SGM caregiving experience is characterized by experienced and anticipated sexual and gender prejudice within health and social services systems, involvement of families of choice, and the invisibility of the needs of SGM caregivers as a community and as individuals. Existing research in this area, which is largely qualitative, provides rich description of caregiver experiences; however, the evidence base would be strengthened by research including a more diverse range of methods, particularly studies aimed at generating results generalizable to the broader SGM community.

Medicine must keep current with the research literature, and keeping current requires continuously updating the clinical knowledge base (i.e., references that provide answers to clinical questions). The authors estimated the volume of medical literature potentially relevant to primary care published in a month and the time required for physicians trained in medical epidemiology to evaluate it for updating a clinical knowledge base. We included journals listed in five primary care journal review services (ACP Journal Club, DynaMed, Evidence-Based Practice, Journal Watch, and QuickScan Reviews). Finding little overlap, we added the 2001 "Brandon/Hill Selected List of Print Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library." We counted articles (including letters, editorials, and other commentaries) published in March 2002, using bibliographic software where possible and hand counting when necessary. For journals not published in March 2002, we reviewed the nearest issue. Five primary care physicians independently evaluated fifty randomly selected articles and timed the process. The combined list contained 341 currently active journals with 8,265 articles. Adjusting for publication frequency, we estimate 7,287 articles are published monthly in this set of journals. Physicians trained in epidemiology would take an estimated 627.5 hours per month to evaluate these articles. To provide practicing clinicians with the best current evidence, more comprehensive and systematic literature surveillance efforts are needed.