Effectiveness of community-based peer-led diabetes self-management programmes (COMP-DSMP) for improving clinical outcomes and quality of life of adults with diabetes in primary care settings in low and middle-income countries (LMIC): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open

Volumn 5, Issue 7, 2015, Pages

  Werfalli, Mahmoud ^a   Raubenheimer, Peter ^a   Engel, Mark ^a,b   Peer, Nasheeta ^c   Kalula, Sebastiana ^a,b   Kengne, Andre P ^d   Levitt, Naomi S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^c Chronic Diseases of Lifestyle Research Unit Durban   (South Africa)

^d SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY BASED PEER LED DIABETES SELF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DIABETES MELLITUS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; META ANALYSIS; MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SOCIOECONOMICS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING; DEMOGRAPHY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; MEDICATION COMPLIANCE; METABOLISM; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PEER GROUP; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROCEDURES; SELF CARE; SELF CONCEPT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; GLYCOSYLATED HEMOGLOBIN; HEMOGLOBIN A1C PROTEIN, HUMAN;

BLOOD GLUCOSE; BLOOD GLUCOSE SELF-MONITORING; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; DIABETES MELLITUS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEMOGLOBIN A, GLYCOSYLATED; HUMANS; MEDICATION ADHERENCE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PEER GROUP; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; SELF CARE; SELF EFFICACY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84937217378     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007635     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Aguiree F, Brown A, Cho N.H., et al. IDF diabetes atlas 2013.
2. Guariguata L, Whiting D, Hambleton I., et al. Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035 for the IDF Diabetes Atlas. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014; 103:137-49.
3. Hosseinpoor AR, Bergen N, Mendis S., et al. Socioeconomic inequality in the prevalence of non-communicable diseases in low-and middle-income countries: results from the World Health Survey. BMC Public Health 2012; 12:474.
4. Beaglehole R, Epping-Jordan J, Patel V., et al. Improving the prevention and management of chronic disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a priority for primary health care. Lancet 2008; 372:940-9.
5. Coleman K, Austin BT, Brach C, et al. Evidence on the Chronic Care Model in the new millennium. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28:75-85.
6. Clement M, Harvey B, Rabi D.M., et al., Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Organization of diabetes care. Can J Diabetes 2013; 37:S20-5.
7. Wu CJ, Chang AM, Courtney M, et al. Peer supporters for cardiac patients with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Int Nurs Rev 2012; 59:345-52.
8. Dennis C. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2003; 40:321-32.
9. Doull M, O'Connor AM, Welch V, et al. Peer support strategies for improving the health and well-being of individuals with chronic diseases. The Cochrane Library, 2005.
10. World Health Organization. Peer support in diabetes management-toward global application. Oxford University Press, 2010.
11. Boothroyd RI, Fisher EB. Peers for progress: promoting peer support for health around the world. Fam Pract 2010; 27 (SUPPL. 1):i62-8.
12. Funnell MM. Peer-based behavioural strategies to improve chronic disease self-management and clinical outcomes: evidence, logistics, evaluation considerations and needs for future research. Fam Pract 2010; 27 (SUPPL. 1):i17-22.
13. Mead S, MacNeil C. Peer support: what makes it unique? Int J Psychosoc Rehabil 2006; 10:29-37.
14. Simmons D, Voyle J, Rush E., et al. The New Zealand experience in peer support interventions among people with diabetes. Fam Pract 2010; 27 (SUPPL. 1):i53-61.
15. Smith SM, Paul G, Kelly A., et al. Peer support for patients with type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2011; 342:d715.
16. Uitewaal P, Bruijnzeels M, de Hoop T, et al. Feasibility of diabetes peer education for Turkish type 2 diabetes patients in Dutch general practice. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 53:359-63.
17. Baksi AK. Experiences in peer-to-peer training in diabetes mellitus: challenges and implications. Fam Pract 2010; 27 (SUPPL. 1):i40-5.
18. Riddell MA, Renwick C, Wolfe R., et al. Cluster randomized controlled trial of a peer support program for people with diabetes: study protocol for the Australasian Peers for Progress study. BMC Public Health 2012; 12:843.
19. The PLEASED program: Peer Leader Training Manual (Guidelines endorsed by International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Education Consultative Section). http://www.idf.org/education/resources/peer-leader-manual (accessed 5 May 2015).
20. Norris SL, Chowdhury FM, Van Le K, et al. Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of persons with diabetes. Diabetic Med 2006; 23:544-56.
21. World Health Organization. Peer support programmes in diabetes: report of a WHO Consultation 5-7 November 2007. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2008.
22. Caro JF, Fisher EB. A solution might be within people with diabetes themselves. Fam Pract 2010; 27 (SUPPL. 1):i1-2.
23. Brownson CA, Heisler M. The role of peer support in diabetes care and self-management. Patient 2009; 2:5-17.
24. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library, 2008.
25. Werfalli M, Musekiwa A, Engel M.E., et al. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus among older people in Africa: a systematic review study protocol. BMJ Open 2014; 4:e004747.
26. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 349:g7647.