↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of peer support for improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
39 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 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
Effectiveness of peer support for improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1798-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li Qi, Qin Liu, Xiaoling Qi, Na Wu, Wenge Tang, Hongyan Xiong

Abstract

To assess the effects of peer support at improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Relevant electronic databases were sought for this investigation up to Dec 2014. Randomized controlled trials involving patients with type 2 diabetes that evaluated the effect of peer support on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) concentrations were included. The pooled mean differences (MD) between intervention and control groups with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random-effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Thirteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Peer support resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c (MD -0.57 [95%CI: -0.78 to -0.36]). Programs with moderate or high frequency of contact showed a significant reduction in HbA1c levels (MD -0.52 [95%CI: -0.60 to -0.44] and -0.75 [95%CI: -1.21 to -0.29], respectively), whereas programs with low frequency of contact showed no significant reduction (MD -0.32 [95%CI: -0.74 to 0.09]). The reduction in HbA1c were greater among patients with a baseline HbA1c ≥ 8.5% (MD -0.78 [95%CI: -1.06 to -0.51]) and between 7.5 ~ 8.5% (MD -0.76 [95%CI: -1.05 to -0.47]), than patients with HbA1c < 7.5% (MD -0.08 [95%CI: -0.32 to 0.16]). Peer support had a significant impact on HbA1c levels among patients with type 2 diabetes. Priority should be given to programs with moderate or high frequency of contact for target patients with poor glycemic control rather than programs with low frequency of contact that target the overall population of patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 172 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 18%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 9 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 52 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 55 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 01 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,469,515
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,682
of 17,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,972
of 281,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#19
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 281,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.