Vicki S. Conn

Formidable health problems are often best addressed by teams of scientists with varied expertise. This diversity among team members and complexities in managing teams can lead to challenges in designing, funding, conducting, and reporting research. Team science difficulties can be addressed by sophisticated planning, frequent reassessment and realignment of team strategies with goals, and consistent transparent communication. This article addresses specific strategies to build and sustain research teams, manage team meetings, strategically develop publications and grants, thrive in the midst of disciplinary and individual team member differences, embrace new ideas and change to maintain creativity, and build future team scientists and projects. The potential value in team science justifies the effort required to build and maintain efficient and effective research teams.

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.

Junior faculty follow a research path replete with challenges as they strive to create knowledge in their area of interest while balancing new responsibilities. Unlike graduate school, where students focus inward on personal development, junior faculty must add responsibilities in ways that hold them accountable as members of a university. This special article deals with three themes of interest to new junior faulty launching research programs: personal development, collaboration and team development within university settings, and funding advice. Strategies in these areas provide guidance on navigating early careers and finding success in the academic setting.

Black adults have higher rates of hypertension and lower rates of blood pressure (BP) control than white adults. Improving BP control requires attention to use of antihypertensive medications, but antihypertensive regimen adherence remains low, preventing improved BP control. We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of intervention studies testing interventions to improve adherence to BP medications among black adults with hypertension. Medication adherence effect sizes were calculated from the reported data. Summary ES were calculated using random-effects model meta-analysis methods to account for both differences in between-study effects and variation in study populations and interventions. We conducted moderator analyses to explore effect sizes differences from reported study design, sample and intervention characteristics. Funnel plots were used to assess publication bias. Comprehensive searches located 39 970 individual citations, which ultimately yielded 37 eligible studies reporting 45 interventions. Overall, interventions were found to significantly improve medication adherence (d = 0.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.19–0.45). Intervention effectiveness was better for medication packaging interventions, but less effective for medication counselling, social support and healthcare provider-focused interventions. Intervention effectiveness was also related to the presence of comorbidities such as diabetes and hyperlipidemia. Interventions to improve medication adherence among black adults with hypertension have a significant but modest benefit. Medication adherence should be addressed in regular follow-up visits with patients. Interventions should include components that actually change patients’ medication-taking practices, rather than focusing on counselling or social support approaches to improve adherence.

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.