| Title |
The effect of peer support in adults with insulin pump-treated type 1 diabetes: a pilot study of a flexible and participatory intervention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s142204 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lene Eide Joensen, Merete Meldgaard Andersen, Sabrina Jensen, Kirsten Nørgaard, Ingrid Willaing |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to explore the effects of a flexible and participatory peer support intervention in a clinical setting for adults with type 1 diabetes treated with an insulin pump, focusing on enhancing diabetes-specific social capital. The key questions were as follows: 1) what effects are appropriate to expect, according to participants? and 2) to what extent did these effects occur? Two peer support intervention programs were conducted in a diabetes specialist clinic (N=30). A participatory and adaptable approach allowed flexibility in the content of peer support meetings, which were facilitated by a diabetes nurse. Individual interviews explored participants' perception of effects of the intervention. Interview data were analyzed qualitatively. Participants (n=27) completed a baseline and postintervention questionnaire that included items assessing diabetes empowerment, diabetes distress, diabetes-specific social support, and diabetes loneliness. HbA1c levels were compared before and after the intervention. Participants experienced enhanced diabetes-specific social capital, diabetes motivation, awareness of personal diabetes practices, and serenity and openness in life with diabetes. They also became more aware of treatment and support possibilities. Negative effects included feeling sad or upset after the meetings or feeling different than and not as well-controlled as other participants. Quantitative analyses showed enhanced social support, decreased eating distress and trends toward enhanced diabetes empowerment, decreased diabetes loneliness, and decreased diabetes distress (powerlessness). We found fewer positive and/or negative outcomes among participants who felt no need for peer support or felt that the group was not a unit or that important issues were not addressed. The study indicated that flexible and participatory peer support can strengthen diabetes-specific social capital and improve participants' well-being and diabetes empowerment. Awareness of participants' incentives for attending peer support, as well as the risk of people feeling isolated within peer support groups, is essential to creating effective diabetes-specific social support. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 30% |
| Denmark | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Scientists | 5 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 27 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 12% |
| Psychology | 8 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,302,355
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#267
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,347
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 340,752 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.