Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Peer-Led, Empowerment-Based Approach to Self-Management Efforts in Diabetes (PLEASED): A Randomized Controlled Trial in an African American Community

Tricia S. Tang, Martha M. Funnell, Brandy Sinco, Michael S. Spencer and Michele Heisler
The Annals of Family Medicine August 2015, 13 (Suppl 1) S27-S35; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1819
Tricia S. Tang
1University of British Columbia Department of Medicine, Vancouver, British Columbia
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tricia.tang@vch.ca
Martha M. Funnell
2University of Michigan Department of Learning Health Sciences. Ann Arbor Michigan
MS, RN, CDE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brandy Sinco
3University of Michigan School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, Michigan
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael S. Spencer
3University of Michigan School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, Michigan
PhD, MSW
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michele Heisler
4University of Michigan Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
5Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Ann Arbor, Michigan
MD, MPA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    CONSORT 2012 flow diagram: PLEASED Study

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Trajectory of unadjusted mean LDL cholesterol levels over time

    Note: At baseline, LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels did not differ significantly between groups. All increases within the Control group were significant (P <.05) relative to the Intervention group. Within-group changes from baseline to 3, 9, and 15 months were all significant for the Control group (P = .01).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Baseline Characteristics of Study Participants

    CharacteristicPeer-led Group (n = 54)Control Group (n = 52)Total (n = 106)P Value for Between-Group Difference
    Age, y, mean (SD)56.7 (11.5)55.9 (11.3)56.3 (11.4).71a
    Men, n (%)17 (31.5%)18 (34.6%)35 (33.0%).73b
    Race or ethnicity, n (%)N/A
     African American54 (100%)52 (100%)106 (100%)
    Education, n (%).33c
     Some high school or less5 (9.6%)3 (5.8%)8 (7.7%)
     High school graduate or GED6 (11.5%)7 (13.5%)13 (12.5%)
     Some college/technical/vocational training25 (48.1%)18 (34.6%)43 (41.3%)
     College graduate or higher16 (30.8%)24 (46.2%)40 (38.5%)
    Employed, n (%)20 (38.5%)25 (48.1%)45 (43.3%).32b
    Have health insurance, n (%)45 (95.7%)49 (100.0%)94 (97.9%).24c
    Household income, n (%).25b
     <$20,0009 (17.3%)14 (26.9%)23 (22.1%)
     $20,000 – $49,99921 (40.4%)24 (46.2%)45 (43.3%)
     $50,000 or more20 (38.5%)13 (25.0%)33 (31.7%)
    Social support
     Married or partnered, n (%)26 (50.0%)24 (46.2%)50 (48.1%).69b
     Diabetes social support, mean (SD)5.4 (1.3)5.3 (1.5)5.3 (1.4).73a
    Antihyperglycemic medication, n (%).97b
     No medications7 (14.0%)6 (12.2%)13 (13.1%)
     Only oral diabetes medication24 (48.0%)24 (49.0%)48 (48.5%)
     Insulin, with or without medication19 (38.0%)19 (38.8%)38 (38.4%)
    Medication adherence, n (%)
     Often or very often miss insulin dose/wk2 (10.0%)1 (4.8%)3 (7.3%).61c
     Often or very often miss medication dose/wk0 (0.0%)1 (2.2%)1 (1.3%)>.99c
    General health
     Self-rated fair or poor general health, n (%)17 (32.7%)19 (36.5%)36 (34.6%).68b
     Minimal depression,d n (%)37 (72.5)29 (55.8)66 (64.1).08b
    Diabetes distress scalee.83b
     Little or no distress30 (57.7)33 (63.5)63 (60.6)
     Moderate distress15 (28.8)13 (25.0)28 (26.9)
     High distress7 (13.5)6 (11.5)13 (12.5)
    Physiological measures
     Hemoglobin A1c, %, mean (SD)7.8 (2.1)8.0 (1.6)7.9 (1.9).53a
     Hemoglobin A1c, mmol/mol, mean (SD)62.0 (23.0)64.0 (17.5)63.0 (20.8).53a
     Total cholesterol, mg/DL, mean (SD)155.3 (42.3)151.8 (40.1)153.5 (41.1).67a
     LDL cholesterol, mg/DL, mean (SD)95.3 (33.8)90.1 (31.8)92.7 (32.8).43a
     HDL Cholesterol, mg/DL, mean (SD)46.4 (15.2)49.6 (15.6)48.0 (15.4).28a
     Total cholesterol / HDL cholesterol3.5 (1.0)3.2 (1.0)3.4 (1.0).12a
     Systolic BP, mm Hg, mean (SD)137.2 (19.5)137.8 (18.5)137.5 (18.9).87a
     Diastolic BP, mm Hg, mean (SD)87.5 (13.2)86.4 (13.4)87.0 (13.2).69a
     Body mass index, kg/m2, mean (SD)36.2 (7.4)35.4 (8.5)35.8 (7.9).59a
     Waist circumference, inches, mean (SD)44.9 (6.3)45.3 (6.6)45.1 (6.4).73a
     Diabetes duration, years, mean (SD)8.0 (6.9)10.5 (9.7)9.2 (8.5).14f
    • ↵a t-Test.

    • ↵b Pearson χ2 test.

    • ↵c Fisher’s exact test.

    • ↵d Minimal depression indicated by PHQ (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders) ≥3.

    • ↵e Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS); DDS <2: little or no distress; 2≤ DDS <3: moderate distress; DDS ≥3: high distress.

    • ↵f Log-Rank test.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Changes in Clinical and Psychological Outcomes Over 15-Month Follow-Up

    OutcomeGroupBaseline3 Months–Baseline9 Months-Baseline15 Months-Baseline
    HbA1c, %, mean (CI)Intervention7.8 (7.2–8.4)−0.1 (−0.4 to 0.3) P = .720.0 (−0.4 to 0.4) P >.990.5 (−0.1 to 1.1) P = .10
    Control8.0 (7.6–8.5)−0.3 (−0.7 to 0.0) P = .080.1 (−0.3 to 0.5) P = .610.1 (−0.5 to 0.8) P = .71
    Control vs Intervention−0.2 (−1.0 to 0.5) P = .530.3 (−0.2 to 0.8) P = .30−0.1 (−0.7 to 0.5) P = .710.4 (−0.5 to 1.3) P = .39
    HbA1c, mmol/mol mean, (CI)Intervention62.0 (55.0–68.0)−1.1 (−4.4 to 3.3) P = .720.0 (−4.4 to 4.4) P >.995.5 (−1.1 to 12.0) P = .10
    Control64.0 (60.0–69.0)−3.3 (−7.7 to 0.0) P = .071.1 (−3.3 to 5.5) P = .611.1 (−5.5 to 8.7) P = .71
    Control vs Intervention−2.2 (−10.9 to 5.5) P = .533.3 (−2.2 to 8.7) P = .30−1.1 (−7.7 to 5.5) P = .714.4 (−5.5 to 14.2) P = .39
    LDL cholesterol, mg/dL, mean (CI)Intervention95.3 (85.8–104.7)3.0 (−3.8 to 9.9) P = .394.6 (−2.6 to 11.8) P = .221.6 (−7.7 to 10.9) P = .74
    Control90.1 (81.3–99.0)15.5 (8.6–22.3) P <.00116.5 (8.9–24.1) P <.00116.6 (6.8–26.3) P = .002
    Control vs Intervention5.1 (−7.6 to 17.9) P = .43−12.5 (−22.1 to −2.8) P = .01−11.9 (−22.4 to −1.5) P = .03−15.0 (−28.5 to −1.5) P = .03
    HDL cholesterol, mg/dL, mean (CI)Intervention46.3 (42.1–50.6)5.8 (3.4–8.3) P <.00113.6 (10.3–16.9) P <.00114.1 (9.9–18.2) P <.001
    Control49.6 (45.3–54.0)0.8 (−1.7 to 3.2) P = .5414.3 (10.8–17.8) P <.00113.3 (8.9–17.7) P <.001
    Control vs Intervention−3.3 (−9.3 to 2.7) P = .285.1 (1.7–8.5) P = .005−0.7 (−5.5 to 4.1) P = .780.8 (−5.3 to 6.8) P = .81
    Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg, mean (CI)Intervention137.2 (131.8–142.5)−0.7 (−5.6 to 4.2) P = .78−0.6 (−6.0 to 4.8) P = .83−2.5 (−7.7 to 2.7) P = .35
    Control137.8 (132.6–142.9)3.6 (−1.3 to 8.6) P = .154.3 (−1.2 to 9.9) P = .137.5 (2.0–13.0) P = .008
    Control vs Intervention−0.6 (−7.9 to 6.7) P = .87−4.3 (−11.3 to 2.6) P = .23−4.9 (−12.7 to 2.8) P = .22−10.0 (−17.6 to −2.4) P = .01
    Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg, mean (CI)Intervention87.4 (83.8–91.1)−4.5 (−7.7 to −1.3) P = .007−3.3 (−6.7 to 0.1) P = .06−6.4 (−9.8 to −3.1) P <.001
    Control86.4 (82.7–90.2)1.9 (−1.3 to 5.1) P = .261.6 (−2.0 to 5.1) P = .391.9 (−1.7 to 5.4) P = .31
    Control vs Intervention1.0 (−4.1 to 6.1) P = .69−6.4 (−10.9 to −1.8) P = .007−4.8 (−9.8 to 0.1) P = .06−8.3 (−13.2 to −3.4) P = .001
    BMI, kg/m2, mean (CI)Intervention36.2 (34.2–38.3)−0.4 (−0.9 to 0.1) P P = .12−0.7 (−1.2 to −0.1) P = .01−1.0 (−1.5 to −0.5) P <.001
    Control35.4 (33.1–37.8)−0.2 (−0.7 to 0.3) P = .42−0.3 (−0.8 to 0.3) P = .35−0.2 (−0.7 to 0.3) P = .49
    Control vs Intervention0.8 (−2.2 to 3.9) P = .59−0.2 (−0.9 to 0.5) P = .60−0.4 (−1.2 to 0.3) P = .29−0.8 (−1.6 to −0.1) P = .03
    Waist circumference, inches, mean (CI)Intervention44.8 (43.1–46.6)−1.0 (−1.8 to −0.2) P = .02−1.3 (−2.2 to −0.5) P = .003−1.4 (−2.2 to −0.5) P = .003
    Control45.3 (43.4–47.1)−0.7 (−1.5 to 0.1) P = .10−1.4 (−2.3 to −0.5) P = .003−1.3 (−2.2 to −0.4) P = .004
    Control vs Intervention−0.4 (−2.9 to 2.1) P = .73−0.3 (−1.5 to 0.9) P = .610.0 (−1.2 to 1.3) P = .950.0 (−1.3 to 1.2) P = .98
    Diabetes support scale, mean (CI)Intervention5.4 (5.0–5.7)0.5 (0.1–0.9) P = .020.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) P = .330.4 (0.0–0.9) P = .04
    Control5.3 (4.8–5.7)0.4 (0.0–0.8) P = .070.4 (0.0–0.8) P = .080.2 (−0.2 to 0.6) P = .31
    Control vs Intervention0.1 (−0.5 to 0.7) P = .730.1 (−0.5 to 0.7) P = .75−0.2 (−0.8 to 0.4) P = .530.2 (−0.4 to 0.8) P = .48
    Little to no diabetes distress,a % (CI)Intervention58.1 (45–71)74.4 (59–85) P = .0169.5 (55–81) P = .0864.0 (50–76) P = .30
    Control63.5 (50–75)90.2 (74–97) P = .0185.0 (68–94) P = .0483.7 (67–93) P = .03
    Control vs Intervention−5.3 (−24 to 13) P = .58.−10.5 (−32 to 11) P = .19−10.1 (−33 to 12) P = .29−14.4 (−37 to 9) P = .13
    • BMI = body mass index; CI = 95% confidence interval.

    • Note: N = 106: Intervention n = 54, Control n = 52. All longitudinal outcomes except diabetes distress were analyzed using a linear mixed model (LMM). Diabetes distress was analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). Control-vs-Intervention P values are between-group values; other P values given are for within-group difference from baseline to the specified time.

    • ↵a Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS). DDS <2: little or no distress; 2≤ DDS <3: moderate distress; DDS ≥3: high distress. P values for DDS are for change relative to baseline. Due to sparse cell counts in the “High Diabetes Distress” category at follow-up times, the logistic regression categories were “Little to no Diabetes Distress” vs “Moderate to High Diabetes Distress.” For the method used to determine confidence intervals for diabetes distress scores, see Supplemental Appendix at http://www.annfammed.org/content/13/Suppl_1/S27/suppl/DC1.

    • b Minimal depression indicated by PHQ (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders) ≥3.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Appendixes

    Supplemental Appendixes

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Appendixes - PDF file
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 13 (Suppl 1)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 13 (Suppl 1)
Vol. 13, Issue Suppl 1
August 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Peer-Led, Empowerment-Based Approach to Self-Management Efforts in Diabetes (PLEASED): A Randomized Controlled Trial in an African American Community
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Peer-Led, Empowerment-Based Approach to Self-Management Efforts in Diabetes (PLEASED): A Randomized Controlled Trial in an African American Community
Tricia S. Tang, Martha M. Funnell, Brandy Sinco, Michael S. Spencer, Michele Heisler
The Annals of Family Medicine Aug 2015, 13 (Suppl 1) S27-S35; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1819

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Peer-Led, Empowerment-Based Approach to Self-Management Efforts in Diabetes (PLEASED): A Randomized Controlled Trial in an African American Community
Tricia S. Tang, Martha M. Funnell, Brandy Sinco, Michael S. Spencer, Michele Heisler
The Annals of Family Medicine Aug 2015, 13 (Suppl 1) S27-S35; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1819
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Investigating the sustainability of self-help programmes in the context of leprosy and the work of leprosy missions in Nigeria, Nepal and India: a qualitative study protocol
  • Patients perspectives of prehabilitation as an extension of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols
  • Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility and Acceptability of the “About Me” Care Card as a Tool for Engaging Older Adults in Conversations About Cognitive Impairment
  • Treatment of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea in Primary Care and Its Patient-Level Variation: An American Family Cohort Study
  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • diabetes
  • peer support
  • health care disparities
  • randomized controlled trial
  • blood glucose control
  • self-management

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine