Understanding the mechanisms generating outcomes in a Danish peer support intervention for socially vulnerable people with type 2-diabetes: a realist evaluation

Stine Dandanell Garn, Charlotte Glümer, Sarah Fredsted Villadsen, Gritt Marie Hviid Malling, Ulla Christensen, Stine Dandanell Garn, Charlotte Glümer, Sarah Fredsted Villadsen, Gritt Marie Hviid Malling, Ulla Christensen

Abstract

Background: Despite an increasing use and positive effects of peer support interventions, little is known about how the outcomes are produced. Thus, it is essential not only to measure outcomes, but also to identify the mechanisms by which they are generated. Using a realist evaluation approach, we aimed to identify the mechanisms generating outcomes in a Danish peer support intervention for socially vulnerable people with type 2-diabetes (peers). By investigating the participating peers' interactions, we furthermore examined how their individual contextual factors either facilitated or hindered the mechanisms in operation.

Methods: We used a multi-method case-study design (n = 9). Data included semi-structured interviews with four key groups of informants (peer, peer supporter, project manager, and a diabetes nurse) for each case (n = 25). Furthermore, we collected survey data from peers both before and after participation (n = 9). The interview data were analysed using a systematic text condensation, and the Intervention-context-actor-mechanism-outcome framework was used to structure the analysis.

Results: We identified 2 groups of mechanisms that improved diabetes self-management and the use of healthcare services (outcomes): 'perceived needs and readiness' and 'encouragement and energy'. However, the mechanisms only generated the intended outcomes among peers with a stable occupation and financial situation, a relatively good health condition, and sufficient energy (all defined as contextual factors). Independent of these contextual factors, 'experience of social and emotional support' was identified as a mechanism within all peers that increased self-care awareness (defined as output). Dependent on whether the contextual factors facilitated or hindered the mechanisms to generate outcomes, we categorised the peers into those who achieved outcomes and those who did not.

Conclusions: We identified two groups of mechanisms that improved the peers' diabetes self-management and use of healthcare services. The mechanisms only generated the intended outcomes if peers' individual contextual factors facilitated an active interaction with the elements of the intervention. However, independent of these contextual factors, a third group of mechanisms increased self-care awareness among all peers. We highlight the importance of contextual awareness of the target groups in the design and evaluation of peer support interventions for socially vulnerable people with type 2-diabetes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Retrospective Registration (20 Jan 2021), registration number NCT04722289 .

Keywords: Complex Intervention; Context; Diabetes self-management; Healthcare services; Inequality; Mechanisms; Peer support; Realist evaluation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Initial ICAMO model
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ICAMO model for peers who achieved the intended outcomes
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
ICAMO model for peers who did not achieve the intended outcomes

References

    1. Caro JF, Fisher EB. A solution might be within people with diabetes themselves. Fam Pract. 2010;27(Suppl 1):1–2. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmn082.
    1. Johansson T, Keller S, Winkler H. Can a peer support intervention improve type 2 diabetes outcomes ? Diabetes Voice. 2014;59(June):2–5.
    1. Werfalli M, Werfalli M, Raubenheimer PJ, Engel M, Musekiwa A, Bobrow K, et al. The effectiveness of peer and community health worker-led self-management support programs for improving diabetes health-related outcomes in adults in low- and-middle-income countries: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):2.
    1. Brownson CA, Heisler M. The role of peer support in diabetes care and self-management. Patient. 2009;2(1):5–17. doi: 10.2165/01312067-200902010-00002.
    1. WHO . Peer Support Programmes in Diabetes. 2007. p. 43.
    1. Heisler M. Building peer support programs to manage chronic disease: seven models for success. 2006. pp. 1–42.
    1. Fisher EB, Ballesteros J, Bhushan N, Coufal MM, Kowitt SD, Manuela McDonough A, et al. Analysis & commentary: Key features of peer support in chronic disease prevention and management. Health Aff. 2015;34(9):1523–30. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0365.
    1. Deng K, Ren Y, Luo Z, Du K, Zhang X, Zhang Q. Peer support training improved the glycemic control, insulin management, and diabetic behaviors of patients with type 2 diabetes in rural communities of Central China: a randomized controlled trial. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:267–75. doi: 10.12659/MSM.895593.
    1. Heisler M. Overview of peer support models to improve diabetes self-management and clinical outcomes. Diabetes Spectr. 2007;20(4):214–21. doi: 10.2337/diaspect.20.4.214.
    1. Lorig K, Ritter PL, Villa FJ, Armas J. Community-based peer-led diabetes self-management: a randomized trial. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(4):641–51. doi: 10.1177/0145721709335006.
    1. Fisher EB, Boothroyd RI, Elstad EA, Hays L, Henes A, Maslow GR, et al. Peer support of complex health behaviors in prevention and disease management with special reference to diabetes: systematic reviews. Clin Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;3:4. doi: 10.1186/s40842-017-0042-3.
    1. Paul GM, Smith SM, Whitford DL, O’Shea E, O’Kelly F, O’Dowd T. Peer support in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial in primary care with parallel economic and qualitative analyses: pilot study and protocol. BMC Fam Pract. 2007;8(45):2–3.
    1. Zhang X, Yang S, Sun K, Fisher EB, Sun X. How to achieve better effect of peer support among adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(2):186–97. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.09.006.
    1. Sokol R, Fisher E. Peer support for the hardly reached: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(7):1308. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303180a.
    1. Christensen NI, Drejer S, Burns K, Lundstrøm SL, Hempler NF. A qualitative exploration of facilitators and barriers for diabetes self-management behaviors among persons with type 2 diabetes from a socially disadvantaged area. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:569–80. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S237631.
    1. Christensen U, Kristensen EC, Malling Hvid GM. Vulnerability assessment in Copenhagen, cities changing diabetes. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen; 2016.
    1. Agardh E, Allebeck P, Hallqvist J, Moradi T, Sidorchuk A. Type 2 diabetes incidence and socio-economic position: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):804–18. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr029.
    1. Espelt A, Arriola L, Borrell C, Larranaga I, Sandin M, Escolar-Pujolar A. Socioeconomic Position and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Europe 1999–2009: a Panorama of Inequalities. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2011.
    1. DIKE. Social ulighed, sundhed og sygdom. Copenhagen. 2020.
    1. Sortsø C, Lauridsen J, Emneus M, Green A, Jensen PB. Socioeconomic inequality of diabetes patients’ health care utilization in Denmark. Health Econ Rev. 2017;7:21.
    1. Walker RJ, Gebregziabher M, Martin-Harris B, Egede LE. Independent effects of socioeconomic and psychological social determinants of health on self-care and outcomes in Type 2 diabetes. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2014;36(6):662–8. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.06.011.
    1. Holm A, Ledgaard GS, Andersen ME, Jørgensen, and Finn Diderichsen. Is the Rule of Halves Framework Relevant for Diabetes Care in Copenhagen Today? A Register-Based Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):1–10.
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350.h1258.
    1. Craig P, Ruggiero E, Di, Frohlich KL, Mykhalovskiy E, White M, Campbell R, et al. Taking account of context in population health intervention research: guidance for producers, users and funders of research. 2018; Available from: 10.3310/CIHR-NIHR-01.
    1. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE Publ; 1997.
    1. Mukumbang FC, Marchal B, Van Belle S, van Wyk B. Using the realist interview approach to maintain theoretical awareness in realist studies. Qual Res. 2019;20(4):485–515.
    1. Jonsson F, Goicolea I. “We believe in you, like really believe in you”: Initiating a realist study of (re)engagement initiatives for youth not in employment, education or training with experiences from northern Sweden. Eval Program Plann. 2020;83:101851. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101851.
    1. Mukumbang FC, Marchal B, Van Belle S, Van Wyk B. Unearthing how, why, for whom and under what health system conditions the antiretroviral treatment adherence club intervention in South Africa works: a realist theory refining approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–15. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3150-6.
    1. Olejaz M, Juul Nielsen A, Rudkjøbing A, Okkels Birk H, Krasnik A, Hernández-Quevedo C. Denmark health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2012;14(2):19.
    1. Health and Care Administration. Action Plan for Type 2-Diabetes. Copenhagen. 2019.
    1. David Napier A, Nolan JJ, Bagger M, Hesseldal L, Volkmann AM. Study protocol for the Cities Changing Diabetes programme: A global mixed-methods approach. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):1–7.
    1. Cities Changing Diabetes. ACTION ON How cities are building a healthier future. Copenhagen. 2020.
    1. Fisher BE, Boothroyd IR, Coufal MM, Baumann CL, Mbanya JC, Rotheram-Borus MJ, et al. Peer support for self-management of diabetes improved outcomes in international settings. Health Aff. 2012;31:130–9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0914.
    1. Kræftens Bekæmpelse. Navigatorprogram for kræftpatienter. Copenhagen. 2015.
    1. Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017;356:1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6795.
    1. Pollitt C. Ray, Pawson. The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. Int Rev Adm Sci. London. 2013.
    1. Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0237-x.
    1. Yin RK. Applications of case study research. Appl Soc Res Methods Ser. 2013.
    1. Stake R. Multiple Case study analysis. Comp Methods Funct Theory. 2006.
    1. Christensen AI, Ekholm O, Juel K, Glümer C, Andreasen AH, Hvidberg MF, et al. The Danish National Health Survey 2010. Study design and respondent characteristics. Scand J Public Health. 2012.
    1. Castleberry A. NVivo qualitative data analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 10, 2012. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014.
    1. Malterud K. Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40:795–805.
    1. Wong G, Westhorp G, Manzano A, Greenhalgh J, Jagosh J, Greenhalgh T. RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):1–18. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1.
    1. Aziz Z, Riddell MA, Absetz P, Brand M, Oldenburg B, Dunbar JA, et al. Peer support to improve diabetes care: An implementation evaluation of the Australasian Peers for Progress Diabetes Program. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4524-0.
    1. American Diabetes Association. Available from: . [cited 5 Jan 2021].
    1. Snorgaard O, Jensen J, Laursen M. et. al. Forløbsprogram TYPE 2 Diabetes. 2009;112.
    1. Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a Process-Evaluation Plan for Assessing Health Promotion Program Implementation: A How-To Guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;(6):134–47.
    1. Lorthios-Guilledroit A, Richard L, Filiatrault J. Factors associated with the implementation of community-based peer-led health promotion programs: a scoping review. Eval Program Plann. 2018;68:19–33. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.01.008.
    1. Nam S, Chesla C, Stotts NA, Kroon L, Janson SL. Barriers to diabetes management: patient and provider factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;93(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.02.002.
    1. Wilkinson A, Whitehead L, Ritchie L. Factors influencing the ability to self-manage diabetes for adults living with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(1):111–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.01.006.
    1. Goetz K, Szecsenyi J, Campbell S, Rosemann T, Rueter G, Raum E, et al. The importance of social support for people with type 2 diabetes - A qualitative study with general practitioners, practice nurses and patients. Psychosoc Med. 2012;9:Doc02–2.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
    1. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26:1753–60.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅