Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 938–942 | Cite as

Peer Coaching to Improve Diabetes Self-Management: Which Patients Benefit Most?

  • David MoskowitzEmail author
  • David H. Thom
  • Danielle Hessler
  • Amireh Ghorob
  • Thomas Bodenheimer
Original Research



Peer health coaching is an effective method of enhancing self-management support in patients with diabetes. It is unclear whether peer health coaching is equally beneficial to all patients with poor glycemic control, or is most effective for subgroups of patients.


To examine whether the effect of peer health coaching on hemoglobin A1c (A1c) is modified by characteristics that are known to be associated with diabetes control.


Sub-group analyses of randomized control trial.


Two hundred and ninety nine patients with diabetes receiving care in public health clinics who participated in a randomized controlled trial of peer health coaches.


We examined whether the association between study group and change in A1c was modified by differences in patients’ demographic, behavioral or psychosocial characteristics. Analyses were adjusted for co-variables associated with change in A1c.


The effect of coaching on patient A1c was modified by patients’ level of self-management and degree of medication adherence as baseline (p = .02, and p = .03 respectively in adjusted models). For participants with “low” self-management (one standard deviation below the mean score), the usual care group experienced a slight increase in A1c (0.3 %), while the health coaching group experienced a decrease (−0.9 %). For participants with “high” self-management (one standard deviation above the mean score), both groups experienced a similar decrease in A1c (usual care group: -1.0 %; health coaching group: −1.1 %). Participants with “low” medication adherence in the usual care group experienced an increase in A1c (0.5 %), while the health coaching group experienced a decrease (−0.8 %). Participants with “high” medication adherence experienced similar decreases (usual care group: −1.1 %; health coaching group: −1.3 %).


Peer health coaching had a larger effect on lowering A1c in patients with low levels of medication adherence and self-management support than in patients with higher levels. Peer health coaching interventions may be most effective if targeted to high-risk patients with diabetes with poor glycemic control and with poor self-management and medication adherence.


peer health coach self-management support diabetes primary care medication adherence interaction 



This research was supported by the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation and Peers for Progress. Dr. Moskowitz was supported by the Primary Care Research Fellowship at UCSF, funded by HRSA D55HP05165.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Funnell MM, Brown TL, Childs BP, et al. National standards for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(Suppl 1):S101–S108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norris SL, Lau J, Smith SJ, Schmid CH, Engelgau MM. Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(7):1159–1171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pearson M, Mattke S, Shaw R, Ridgely M, Wiseman S. Patient self-management support programs: an evaluation. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen EH, Thom DH, Hessler DM, et al. Using the teamlet model to improve chronic care in an academic primary care practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(Suppl 4):S610–S614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lorig KR, Ritter P, Stewart AL, et al. Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Med Care. 2001;39(11):1217–1223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang TS, Funnell MM, Gillard M, Nwankwo R, Heisler M. Training peers to provide ongoing diabetes self-management support (DSMS): results from a pilot study. Patient Educ Counsel. 2011;85(2):160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher EB, Earp JA, Maman S, Zolotor A. Cross-cultural and international adaptation of peer support for diabetes management. Fam Pract. 2010;27(Suppl 1):i6–i16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Long J, Jahnle E, Richardson D, Lowenstein G, Volpp K. Peer mentoring and financial incentives to improve glucose control in African American veterans: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(6):416–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joseph DH, Griffin M, Hall RF, Sullivan ED. Peer coaching: an intervention for individuals struggling with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2001;27(5):703–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keyserling TC, Samuel-Hodge CD, Ammerman AS, et al. A randomized trial of an intervention to improve self-care behaviors of African-American women with type 2 diabetes: impact on physical activity. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(9):1576–1583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heisler M, Vijan S, Makki F, Piette JD. Diabetes control with reciprocal peer support versus nurse care management: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(8):507–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thom D, Ghorob A, Hessler D, De Vore D, Chen E, Bodenheimer T. Peer health coaching improves glycemic in low-income patients with diabetes: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2013; in press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    House JS DRW. Understanding and reducing socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in health. In: Smedley BD, Syme SL, eds. Promoting health: intervention strategies from social and behavioral research. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000:81–124.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miech RA, Kim J, McConnell C, Hamman RF. A growing disparity in diabetes-related mortality U.S. trends, 1989–2005. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(2):126–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown AF, Ettner SL, Piette J, et al. Socioeconomic position and health among persons with diabetes mellitus: a conceptual framework and review of the literature. Epidemiol Rev. 2004;26:63–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288(4):475–482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DiMatteo MR. Social support and patient adherence to medical treatment: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2004;23(2):207–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gallant MP. The influence of social support on chronic illness self-management: a review and directions for research. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30(2):170–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ciechanowski PS, Katon WJ, Russo JE. Depression and diabetes: impact of depressive symptoms on adherence, function, and costs. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(21):3278–3285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002;40(9):794–811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghorob A, Vivas MM, De Vore D, et al. The effectiveness of peer health coaching in improving glycemic control among low-income patients with diabetes: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Publ Health. 2011;11:208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2009;114(1–3):163–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tang TS, Brown MB, Funnell MM, Anderson RM. Social support, quality of life, and self-care behaviors amongAfrican Americans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2008;34(2):266–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588–594.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):561–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wallston KA, Rothman RL, Cherrington A. Psychometric properties of the Perceived Diabetes Self-Management Scale (PDSMS). J Behav Med. 2007;30(5):395–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morisky DE, Ang A, Krousel-Wood M, Ward HJ. Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2008;10(5):348–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM. Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Med Care. 1986;24(1):67–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–1182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heisler M. Different models to mobilize peer support to improve diabetes self-management and clinical outcomes: evidence, logistics, evaluation considerations and needs for future research. Fam Pract. 2009;27(Suppl 1):i23–i32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Moskowitz
    • 1
    Email author
  • David H. Thom
    • 2
  • Danielle Hessler
    • 2
  • Amireh Ghorob
    • 2
  • Thomas Bodenheimer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ambulatory and Preventive MedicineAlameda County Medical CenterOaklandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Family & Community MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations