Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of fampractLink to Publisher's site
Fam Pract. 2010 June; 27(Suppl 1): i23–i32.
Published online 2009 March 17. doi:  10.1093/fampra/cmp003
PMCID: PMC2902359

This article has been retractedRetraction in: Fam Pract. 2012 August 30; 29(4): 497    See also: PMC Retraction Policy

Different models to mobilize peer support to improve diabetes self-management and clinical outcomes: evidence, logistics, evaluation considerations and needs for future research


Much of diabetes care needs to be carried out by patients between office visits with their health care providers. Yet, many patients face difficulties carrying out these tasks. In addition, many adults with diabetes cannot count on effective support from their families and friends to help them with their self-management. Peer support programmes are a promising approach to enhance social and emotional support, assist patients in daily management and living with diabetes and promote linkages to clinical care. This background paper provides a brief overview of different approaches to mobilize peer support for diabetes self-management support, discusses evidence to date on the effectiveness of each of these models, highlights logistical and evaluation issues for each model and concludes with a discussion of directions for future research in this area.

Keywords: Chronic disease, diabetes, peer support, self-management


Much of diabetes care needs to be carried out by patients between office visits with their health care providers. Patients need successfully to execute multiple diabetes self-management behaviours—taking prescribed medications; following diet and exercise regimens; self-monitoring and coping emotionally with the rigors of living with diabetes. Yet, many patients face difficulties carrying out these tasks. In addition, many adults with diabetes cannot count on effective support from their families and friends to help them with their diabetes self-management.1

Clinic-based support programmes and nurse case management outreach are important means of supporting patients’ diabetes self-management but often alone cannot adequately meet many patients’ needs. The time allotted in an outpatient visit is often not enough to address all of the questions that a patient has about self-care. While intensive care management interventions (such as face-to-face or telephone contact with a nurse care manager between medical visits) are effective for patients with high-risk chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart failure,2,3 these programmes are labour- and resource-intensive. Many health care systems throughout the world lack the resources to implement intensive nurse-led case management programmes.

Higher levels of social support—especially illness-specific or regimen-specific support—are associated with better diabetes and other illness self-management.1,48 Moreover, providing social support to others may result in health benefits comparable to—or even greater—than receiving support. Individuals, who provide social support through volunteering experience less depression,9,10 have heightened self-esteem and self-efficacy,11 and improved quality of life, even after adjusting for baseline health status and socioeconomic status.12,13 Furthermore, providing support to others can lead to improved health behaviours on the part of the helper,14 decreased mortality risk15,16 and improved health outcomes and function.12,17,18 These benefits are especially strong among those who are elderly and have fewer opportunities to contribute to the well-being of others.10,19 Many older diabetes patients, in particular, not only lack an extensive social network but also opportunities to be of service formerly available through jobs or taking care of children.

Peer support among patients with the same chronic health problem may be especially effective, combining the benefits of both receiving and providing social support. ‘Peer support’ is defined as ‘support from a person who has experiential knowledge of a specific behavior or stressor and similar characteristics as the target population’.20 In this paper, I will focus on peer support among adults who share the experience of living with a chronic condition. Peer support helps reduce problematic health behaviours,19 depression20,21 and, in several randomized controlled trials, has contributed to improved diabetes management, including improving behaviours related to medication adherence, diet, exercise and blood glucose monitoring.2225 The success of peer support appears to be due in part to the non-hierarchical, reciprocal relationship that is created through the sharing of similar life experiences.19,20 Figure 1 diagrams mechanisms by which peer support may lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Hypothesized effects of peer support on self-care attitudes, behaviours and outcomes. (Adapted from Heisler, Congestive Heart Failure 2007.)

The findings of benefits for patients with chronic diseases from peer support programmes are consistent with the long-standing tradition of group therapy and mutual support groups as a means of improving psychosocial outcomes for patients with substance abuse and other chronic conditions.2629 Thus, both the intensity and mechanisms linking peer support to health outcomes are different from and likely complementary to those provided by health care provider services. As important, peer support interventions, by training and employing volunteers or non-professional staff members, are much less resource-intensive than traditional case management models. In this regard, peer support models are especially promising for safety net providers and public health systems facing severe resource constraints.

Peer support is especially beneficial when adults with chronic diseases are tackling challenging new medical tasks, such as insulin management. In such situations, sharing experiences with others undergoing the same medical and/or behavioural tasks is an effective means of gaining mastery of tasks and improving disease outcomes.23,30,31 In addition, assimilating new knowledge and appraisals through mutual exchange of experiences occurs more effectively when presented by peers with whom individuals identify and share common experiences. Among peers, those who take on the helper role gain competency in the target medical or behavioural task as much as those who are ‘helped’.14,32 Moreover, the more homogeneous the peers are (i.e. partners with similar life experiences and age and those facing similar self-care challenges), the more likely support will lead to understanding, empathy and mutual help.33

Interventions that mobilize and build on peer support are an especially promising way to improve self-management support for patients with diabetes. The most effective models appear to combine peer support with a more structured programme of education and assistance. To date, most efforts to increase self-management and peer support among patients with chronic conditions have focused on clinic-based group visits, peer-led training sessions and support groups. Peer-to-peer34,35 and clinician-led3638 group visits and training sessions34,35 improve outcomes for participating patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases.3941 Yet, many patients face difficulties attending regular face-to-face meetings. In even the most successful trials of face-to-face group visits36,42 and self-management training sessions,34,35 many participants do not attend the sessions, and the programmes are time-limited, not providing a mechanism for sustained support. Thus, it is useful to examine the range of different models for effectively mobilizing peer support in conjunction with health care provider support to improve diabetes outcomes.

This background paper provides a brief overview of different approaches to mobilize peer support for diabetes self-management support, discusses evidence to date on the effectiveness of each of these models, highlights logistical and evaluation issues for each model and concludes with a discussion of directions for future research in this area. A more in-depth description of different peer support models and logistical guide to developing and implementing different peer support programmes can be found in the 2006 California Health Care Foundation Report, Building Peer Support Programs to Manage Chronic Disease: Seven Models for Success.43

Face-to-face group self-management programmes

There is strong evidence for the benefits of face-to-face group self-management programmes that combine discussion on key self-management issues participants are facing, peer exchange and support and behaviourally based approaches to strengthen participants’ diabetes care self-efficacy, problem solving skills and efforts to set and follow through on specific behavioural goals. Programmes found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve diabetes self-management and clinical outcomes include health professional-led diabetes-specific programmes based on empowerment theory (see Marti Funnell's background paper). In these programmes, the leader serves primarily as a facilitator with participant-defined agendas.44 There is also strong RCT evidence for self-management, quality of life and clinical benefits resulting from more structured self-management training for participants with a range of different chronic diseases following a set curriculum led by trained peer leaders who often themselves have diabetes and other chronic diseases.34,35

Self-management training programmes seek to provide information and promote behavioural skills that will help patients carry out the tasks necessary to live as well as possible with chronic illness. These skills include dealing with stress, managing and monitoring symptoms, carrying out all necessary biomedical tasks, navigating health systems and working with health care providers. Peers are especially effective as leaders for self-management programmes. As people who are themselves living with chronic conditions, they serve as excellent role models for participants. Moreover, peer leaders can more easily hold group sessions outside of normal working hours than can health care professionals, allowing more courses to be offered at a variety of times. Because even the most effective self-management programmes require follow-up contact to sustain improvements in health behaviours,45 peers can also maintain contact with programme graduates to continue to provide them with self-management support.

Many peer-led programmes throughout the world follow a model that was first developed and evaluated by Kate Lorig and colleagues ( the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP), or Tomando Control de Su Salud, the Spanish version. The CDSMP is a programme for patients with different chronic conditions including diabetes given in 2.5-hour sessions once a week over 6 weeks. Its content includes design of individualized exercises and cognitive symptom management programmes; methods for managing negative emotions such as anger, fear, depression and frustration, and discussion of such topics as medications, diet, health care providers and fatigue. Leaders teach the courses in an interactive manner designed to enhance participants’ confidence in their ability to execute specific self-care tasks (or ‘self-efficacy’).46 In the model developed by Lorig and colleagues, the goal is not to provide disease-specific content but rather to use interactive exercises to build self-efficacy and other skills that will help participants better manage their chronic conditions and live fulfilling, active lives. A vital element is promoting exchange and discussion among participants and with the peer leaders. In this model, pairs of peer leaders who have undergone training in course content and process conduct the sessions together.

The most successful diabetes-specific self-management group classes that have been rigorously evaluated to date are based on empowerment theory. Evaluated models to date have been led by health care professionals whose role is to work collaboratively with patients in support of their efforts to obtain knowledge and skills, attain self-selected goals and overcome barriers and seek out appropriate care recommendations and support.44 Rather than follow organized lesson plans delivering content in a prescribed manner and order, these programmes encourage patients to apply newly acquired knowledge to their own lifestyles and to exchange information and experiences, enabling participants to learn from each other. Core empowerment model concepts include promoting patients’ inherent drive toward wellness and encouraging informed choices and decision making.44,47 Several RCTs have found improvements in glycemic control, diabetes-specific quality of life, self-efficacy and other patient-centered outcomes among participants in these group sessions compared to control groups.44 Trial evidence from the USA also supports the effectiveness of these programmes among low-income African American and other ethnic minorities who have been found in focus group research to prefer more experiential learning with exchange of diabetes-related experiences among trusted peers to traditional lecture-based teaching from a health professional.47 A key area for future research is to evaluate group sessions based on empowerment theory that are led by trained peer leaders rather than by health care professionals (see Marti Funnell's background paper).

Key elements for success of peer-led group self-management classes include the following:

  • To facilitate participants’ ability to attend these programmes, they need to be held in easily accessible community-based settings (e.g. churches, community organizations, neighbourhood clinics).
  • Sessions need to be held at a variety of times to accommodate people's different work schedules.
  • There needs to be at least one dedicated staff person who helps coordinate logistics and support the peer volunteers.
  • Peer leaders need opportunities for exchange, continued skill development, recognition and strong logistical support.
  • While low-cost, there needs to be support for the salary of the staff providing logistical support for the groups, leader recruitment and training expenses and materials and facility expenses. In some programmes, peer leaders receive a stipend and in all cases are reimbursed for their expenses
  • The curriculum and format of the sessions need to be based on behavioural approaches found to be effective in promoting and supporting behavioural change (e.g. social cognitive theory, empowerment theory, Motivational Interviewing) (see Ann Belton's background paper).

Many participants face barriers to attending frequent, face-to-face programmes, and even the most effective self-management programmes require sustained follow-up to sustain benefits. It is thus important to explore how other peer support models discussed below may complement or extend these programes.

Peer coaches or mentors

A more informal, flexible means of providing peer support for patients with diabetes and other chronic conditions comes from volunteer peer coaches, or mentors. Peer coaches meet one-on-one with other patients to listen, discuss concerns and provide support. Peer coaches are usually individuals who have successfully coped with the same condition or surgical procedure and can be positive role models. These coaches usually receive from 8 to 32 hours of initial training. The training focuses on communication skills, including empathic listening, helping participants clarify their values and life goals, problem solving and assertiveness. Teaching the skills necessary to support patients is emphasized, rather than having the mentor try to assume the role of a health care provider.

Peer mentors may be especially effective at helping patients develop strategies to incorporate complex treatment regimens into their everyday routines. Peer mentors play an especially important role in educational activities to introduce patients to a new, potentially frightening medical task (e.g. starting dialysis). For example, peer mentors have helped patients deal with their fears about renal transplants and breast cancer surgery. They discuss their own experiences and address patients’ concerns and fears. Volunteer peer mentors also are frequently available beyond normal clinic hours when patients usually do not have access to health care staff. Peers promote the clinic as a caring health community. Moreover, as is the case with other forms of peer support, peer mentoring may help both the patient and the mentor. As noted earlier, a growing body of research shows that patients who help others in turn receive benefits for themselves.

To date, there are very few rigorous published evaluations of peer mentor programmes. Preliminary studies to date conducted in USA suggest that peer mentoring may be especially effective with individuals from minority ethnic or racial groups who have a historic cultural mistrust of predominantly white health care systems.48 No studies to date have rigorously evaluated the effectiveness of peer mentor programmes for adults with diabetes. However, peer mentors have been shown to foster trust of the health care staff and enhance coping and health outcomes among patients with breast and prostate cancer, women with postpartum depression and patients with HIV/AIDS.48 Peer mentors have also been shown to improve heart failure self-care among heart failure patients.49

Preliminary evidence suggests several key features of successful peer mentoring programmes:

  • Sufficient training and ongoing support for peer mentors, who to date have often been volunteers.
  • Careful consideration of and discussion upfront with the mentors on the amount of time peer mentors are able and willing to put into the programme, what they are most interested in doing to match them with their area of interest, feasible numbers of patients they are able to provide support for and areas that might be uncomfortable for them.
  • Regular opportunities for peer mentors to share experiences, solve problems, provide mutual support and receive additional training and appropriate recognition for their efforts.

Peer community health workers

Community health workers (CHWs), or promotoras, are community members who work as bridges between their ethnic, cultural and geographic communities and health care providers to promote health, usually among groups that have traditionally lacked access to adequate health care. Community health workers traditionally have not necessarily had diabetes or other chronic conditions themselves, but have been peers to the populations they serve in other important respects: They often speak the language, share the culture, and come from the same communities as the patients with whom they work. Some populations are more likely than others to turn to informal health care systems, and the community health worker model may fit these populations best.

A growing number of programmes are training and recruiting CHWs who also share the chronic condition of the targeted populations they will be serving and thus are also ‘peers’ in the sense focused on in this background paper. In this sense, this model could be a promising venue for ‘peer coaches’ serving in the community health worker role. Community health workers to date have had five often-overlapping roles in the treatment of diabetes: These include the following: caring for and supporting patients by helping identify resources, managing cases, reaching out to patients by telephone and providing patients with disease-specific information; educating patients about self-care and helping them learn self-care skills; supporting the care and education provided by health care professionals; coordinating care and acting as a liaison with the health care system and providing social support by being available to listen and talk through problems that patients are experiencing.50

Even with access to health care, there may be multiple individual and community barriers to adequate self-care of chronic diseases. People may lack transportation to attend regular clinic visits, have unstable work or home situations or lack knowledge of available resources. Studies suggest that community health workers can help overcome these barriers by developing trusting, close relationships with the people they serve. Indeed, community health worker programmes have improved health care access, prenatal care, pregnancy and birth outcomes, health status and health and screening-related behaviours among participants in the programmes.50 Community health workers educate their peers, encourage them and help them effectively use and navigate community and health resources. They improve the quality of life of the patients they serve and are particularly helpful in vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. There is also some evidence that community health care workers reduce health care costs.50

In many countries, the focus of community health workers has been on prevention, but there is increasing recognition that they can help patients with chronic conditions. The Institute of Medicine recommends that health care systems support the use of community health workers to address racial and ethnic disparities in health care, stating that ‘community health workers offer promise as a community-based resource to increase racial and ethnic minorities’ access to health care and to serve as a liaison between health care providers and the communities they serve’.51 A 2006 systematic review of community health worker programmes serving adults with diabetes found that in five of the seven studies reporting outcomes, patients who worked with a community health worker had more knowledge of their disease and better self-care skills (e.g. in areas such as diet, exercise and blood glucose monitoring) than those patients who had no contact with a community health worker. Patients connected with community health workers had fewer emergency room visits.52 This review also found improved provider monitoring of glycemic control and rates of retinopathy screening.52

Community health workers have also been successfully combined with nurse-led services. In one such programme in USA, African American patients with diabetes who received the combined community health worker/nurse manager intervention had greater declines in A1c values, cholesterol, triglycerides and diastolic blood pressure than did routine-care groups or those led solely by either community health workers or nurse case managers.53

Research to date suggests that community health workers, whether they share the chronic disease of those they are serving or are trained community members, are most likely to be successful when they have an effective health care intervention to deliver. Community health workers are most effective in settings where infrastructure is already in place, particularly one involving well-developed community networks and strong social ties among members. Most successful community health worker programmes use a community-based, participatory model, in which community members and health care and other agencies have shared values, equity, planning and participation.

Initial results about the effectiveness of community health worker programmes for chronic disease management are encouraging. There is still a great need, however, for more rigorous evaluation of health outcomes, cost-effectiveness and of what type and intensity of training community health workers should receive. Research also needs to be done on the optimal type and level of support for these workers.

Telephone-based peer support

To circumvent distance barriers, telephone outreach may be an effective and cost-efficient extension of clinic-based diabetes services and face-to-face self-management training and support.54 Telephone-based care management allows for frequent patient contacts at a low cost and improves diabetes self-care and health outcomes.2,5562 Unfortunately, however, many health systems lack the nursing resources required to manage telephone care programmes that rely exclusively on care manager outreach.

One promising approach to improve care for diabetes and other chronic diseases is to combine elements of peer-led self-management support and telephone-based care through telephone-based peer support. In telephone-based peer interventions, patients receive support through regular phone calls. Sometimes, a peer or peer counsellor makes calls as the sole form of intervention. Other times, the telephone intervention is a complement to another type of intervention. For example, participants in mutual support groups, self-management training classes and group visits may exchange phone numbers and provide support between scheduled visits. In this way, telephone-based peer support can provide an important source of self-management support between scheduled face-to-face group visits, self-management training programmes or other clinic-based programmes.

Telephone-based peer-helper interventions can be a satisfactory substitute for face-to-face peer interaction.63 In fact, many people prefer the relative anonymity and increased privacy of talking on the telephone.49,64,65 Telephone-based peer support interventions have led to improvements in chronic disease outcomes.63,64,6668 The principal barriers to telephone-based peer support interventions have been participants’ reluctance to share their telephone numbers and the cost of telephone calls, especially if partners are not in the same locality. Moreover, many patients may be willing to participate in peer support calls but lack the initiative or organization to ensure that contacts are made regularly. From a health system perspective, telephone peer support initiatives can be difficult to monitor, and few if any have been designed to interface with standard outpatient nursing care.

One way to address these limitations is to use an interactive voice response (IVR) exchange platform with Internet monitoring, a low-cost technology that can be used worldwide. With this technology, participants do not share phone numbers, and they can block calls during certain hours. The IVR system can also generate automatic reminder calls to participants who have not contacted each other in a given period. IVR-facilitated telephone peer support may be an ideal adjunct to promote more effective use of standard nursing services and give patients additional help without requiring health systems to hire more workers. Such programmes might also be used to extend the reach of ongoing face-to-face self-management programmes. In an IVR system, a participant dials a designated toll-free IVR number to contact the partner. When connected with the system, she enters her own home phone number, which serves as an identification code linking her to the partner's home phone. If, during the call, a question arises for a case manager or other staff member, voicemail messages can be left immediately by pressing a designated key. A password-protected Web site can be used to monitor the calling process, including when calls were placed, who initiated them and how long they lasted. If partners seem to have difficulty making contact, a staff person can contact them and address any problems. If either peer partner wishes to discontinue the programme for any reason, she can ask a staff person to remove her telephone number from the system.

Two large-scale randomized controlled trials of IVR peer support programmes are currently underway: the first focusing on patients with diabetes on maximum doses of oral anti-hyperglycemic medications and poor glycemic control.69,70 Many of the sources of patient resistance to initiating and intensifying insulin therapy lend themselves to peer support. Principal sources of resistance to starting insulin include fear of giving an injection, anxieties about proper techniques and fear of hypoglycemia.71 Moreover, insulin holds negative symbolism for many patients, representing ‘treatment failure’, social stigma and advancing illness.72,73 Many diabetes patients perceive insulin as by far the most burdensome diabetes treatment.73 Yet, one recent study found that patients who had experience with insulin therapy rated the burden of insulin use significantly lower than those with no experience. This study reinforces other research demonstrating that patients’ experiential concerns may be best addressed with another person who also is coping with insulin management.73

The diabetes trial is evaluating a novel, low-cost intervention designed to address the informational and support needs of patients managing a change in their insulin use, through face-to-face group meetings based on empowerment theory that are facilitated by nurses44 and IVR-facilitated peer support. The programme pairs patients who have similar disease severity and who face similar self-management challenges. The peer matching is intended to be egalitarian, with both peers receiving and providing support, with no designation of a ‘helper’ or ‘helpee’. Although one of the key mechanisms by which peer support may work is to ‘activate’ patients by having them help others (similar to how having someone teach something is the best way to get them to learn it well), this has not yet been rigorously tested in randomized controlled trials.

Both patients receive some training in peer communication skills to support each other. At the initial nurse-led group session, facilitators trained in empowerment theory facilitate discussion among the group of diabetes patients about self-management challenges they are facing and support participants to generate an initial short-term (1–2 weeks) ‘action plan’ of a specific behavioural step they will try over the next two weeks. Participants undergo initial training in empowerment theory-based peer communication skills and are encouraged to contact their partners weekly using a toll-free IVR phone system that protects their anonymity and provides automated reminders if contacts are not made. The IVR system further enables participants to leave asynchronous messages for each other and voice mail messages for the participating nurses during the peer conversations. Participants also receive a workbook to assist them in their partners in working together on their action plans. Finally, participants have the opportunity to participate in periodic group sessions (at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months).

The pilot studies underpinning these RCTs found high levels of participation in and satisfaction with the programme.70,74 All participants successfully completed the intervention and had no technical difficulties with IVR-facilitated peer support phone calls. Most participants enjoyed talking with their peer partners and participated regularly in the peer support calls. Ninety percent of participants reported that they would be more satisfied with their health services if such a peer support programme was available. Participants reported that discussing mutual health concerns with a peer partner increased their motivation and confidence in caring for their own chronic conditions and that they found meaning and positive reinforcement in trying to support their partner's self-management efforts. The most successful matches in the pilot were between those who felt that they could both learn from and contribute to their partner's diabetes management because they had similar disease severity and challenges. The recently launched RCT study will rigorously assess whether these promising pilot findings are borne out in a larger trial. In addition, much more research evaluating different models of telephone-based peer support—and combinations of face-to-face and telephone-based peer support and other chronic disease self-management support strategies—is needed.

Web- and email-based peer support programmes

Like telephone support, Web- and email-based support can overcome the difficulties some patients have with face-to-face contact. Over the past decade, there has been significant growth in Internet-based support groups and other uses of the Internet to mobilize peer support. Internet-based interventions are promising because of their low cost and ease of dissemination, and they may provide alternatives to more labour- and resource-intensive clinic programmes. Whereas traditional chronic disease support has been enhanced through face-to-face medical care, education programmes and support groups, Internet technology makes it possible to continue this tradition of supportive interaction in conjunction with information and education in a way that transcends the clinic environment.

Internet programmes have been developed for diabetes education and self-management support, for delivering a behavioural weight-loss programme and for individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes.7577 Results of several recent randomized controlled trials suggest that adding peer support components (sometimes called ‘e-community’ components) to Internet-based interventions can increase their effectiveness.78 An example of a successful programme is the Internet discussion boards established for patients and their family members by The Boston-based Joslin Diabetes Center in 1998. These boards are a technological extension of traditional support groups providing people with diabetes a place to communicate with each other. For 74 months, from 1998 to 2004, John Zrebiec tracked the activity and characteristics of user visits to the site and conducted a survey of user satisfaction. Of 791 survey respondents, 74% rated participation in the discussion board as having a positive effect on coping with diabetes and 71% rated participation as helping them to feel ‘more hopeful’ or ‘a lot more hopeful’ about coping with diabetes.79

In another recent intervention, Lorig and colleagues developed an Internet version of their Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) with similar content to original face-to-face programme. Two trained peer moderators take part in each workshop and help participants by reminding them to log on, modeling action planning and problem solving, offering encouragement and posting to the bulletin boards. Lorig and colleagues recently completed a randomized controlled evaluation of the programme among participants with diabetes, heart disease and/or chronic lung disease.80 After 12 months, intervention participants had significantly improved levels of health distress, fatigue, pain and shortness of breath. Increases in self-efficacy at 6 months were significantly associated with improved levels of pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, disability, illness intrusiveness, health distress and global general health. Improvements in the online group were similar to those achieved in the face-to-face groups.

While such initiatives are promising, this is a very new area requiring much research on how best to design and sustain effective programmes. Just some of the unanswered questions include the following: How can programmes be designed to maintain health improvements over time? Are people who seek help online different from those who seek help in person, and if so, how? Can virtual communities replace or complement face-to-face support? How can these online health care services best complement existing health care delivery? What is the optimal use of Internet communications to promote the targeted health behaviours? How interactive does the system need to be? What is the optimal combination of Internet and face-to-face modalities?

Key evaluation and research needs

To be successful, peer support interventions need to be well-designed with clear and realistic programme goals, adequate training and support for peers and sufficient overall organizational support for the programme. As with any health care programme, effective evaluation is critically important. In particular the following are important evaluation elements:

  • clear and measurable goals, objectives and evaluation benchmarks;
  • an understanding of evaluation principles and practices among those implementing the programme;
  • use of targeted and streamlined data collection forms that do not create significant extra burdens on participants’ time and that are easy to complete in the face of pressing service obligations;
  • ways to track and evaluate the process of programme implementation (including concrete measures such as number and types of contacts, total numbers of patients served and other specific benchmark);
  • linkage of programme inputs with programme outputs, and measurement of specific short-term and intermediate outcomes (e.g. changes in relevant patient health measures, resource use and satisfaction);
  • ways to document expenses (costs) and savings (benefits) associated with delivering services and
  • monitoring and documentation of the peer support programme's relationship with other clinical services and staff time and involvement in the peer support programme.

Careful and systematic evaluation of different models of peer support will help build the knowledge base of elements of effective programmes serving different populations throughout the world. In particular, use of consistent evaluation criteria in evaluations of peer support interventions will help in understanding how best to adapt programmes to meet the needs of different settings and populations worldwide (see Ed Fisher's background paper).

Because the knowledge base on peer support programmes for chronic disease management is still very small, research is needed on all dimensions of designing, implementing and evaluating different models of peer support to meet the needs of different populations in diverse settings. In particular, research is needed to determine:

  • What intensity and kinds of initial and ongoing training do peer workers/volunteers need in content, principles of behavioural counselling and communication skills?
  • What are the most effective behavioural approaches and content for peer counselling and peer-led group and individual self-management training sessions (see Marti Funnell and Ann Belton's background papers)?
  • What level and kind of support, feedback and oversight of peer workers/volunteers lead to optimal outcomes?
  • How much organizational support is necessary to provide to programmes and peer workers/volunteers to meet programme objectives?
  • What are the most effective procedures for recruiting peers and identifying and reaching target populations for peer services?
  • How can peer support interventions most effectively complement and extend other clinical services and outreach, such as nurse case management and structured self-management training and education?
  • What is the optimal mix of modalities in peer support interventions among face-to-face and telephone contact, as well as web-based and email modalities?
  • What are important characteristics of peer support models that are effective in different settings and with different populations, and how do these vary based on the context (see Ed Fisher's background paper)?


A critical issue for many patients with diabetes is accessing sufficient support on a regular basis for effective diabetes self-management and to ensure their most effective use of clinical services. In the face of growing numbers of older adults with chronic illnesses such as diabetes and significant resource constraints facing health systems worldwide, it is increasingly important to develop and evaluate low-cost interventions that build on available resources and can empower patients to provide greater mutual assistance. In particular, novel strategies are needed to increase between-visit support via community-based programmes, telephone-based programmes and programmes utilizing new communication technologies for the large numbers of patients with limited health literacy.

Peer support models provide a potentially low-cost, flexible means to supplement formal health care support. Peer support models also potentially benefit both those ‘receiving’ the support and those ‘providing’ it. Reciprocal models for both receiving and providing peer support are currently being rigorously evaluated. The unifying feature of these programmes is that they seek to build on the strengths, knowledge and experience that peers can offer. Peer support interventions build on the crucial recognition that people living with chronic illnesses have a great deal to offer each other: They share knowledge and experience that others, including many health care professionals, often cannot understand. If carefully designed and implemented, peer support interventions can be a very powerful way to help patients with chronic diseases live more successfully with their conditions.

There is still much to learn about how best to organize and deliver effective programmes, which types of programmes are best for different types of patients and how best to integrate peer support interventions into other clinical and outreach services. Many of the models discussed in this brief overview have not yet been rigorously evaluated in randomized controlled trials—or have only been evaluated in one or two studies. There is much to be done in testing different peer support models and building knowledge to inform the development of effective models of peer support for diabetes self-management.


This paper was prepared for the Diabetes Consultation meeting sponsored by the World Health Organization in Geneva Switzerland, November 5–7, 2007.

Funding: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) Service (DIB 98-001), The Eli Lilly Foundation, and the Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center (P60DK-20572). MH is a VA HSR&D Career Development awardee.

Conflict of interest: none.


1. Gallant MP. The influence of social support on chronic illness self-management: a review and directions for research. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30:170–195. [PubMed]
2. Aubert RE, Herman WH, Waters J, et al. Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:605–612. [PubMed]
3. Phillips CO, Wright SM, Kern DE, Singa RM, Shepperd S, Rubin HR. Comprehensive discharge planning with postdischarge support for older patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291:1358–1367. [PubMed]
4. Lloyd CE, Wing RR, Orchard TJ, Becker DJ. Psychosocial correlates of glycemic control: the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications (EDC) study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1993;21:187–195. [PubMed]
5. Glasgow RE, Toobert DJ. Social environment and regimen adherence among type II diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 1988;11:377–386. [PubMed]
6. Ruggiero L, Spirito A, Bond A, Coustan D, McGarvey S. Impact of social support and stress on compliance in women with gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1990;13:441–443. [PubMed]
7. Tillotson LM, Smith MS. Locus of control, social support, and adherence to the diabetes regimen. Diabetes Educ. 1996;22:133–139. [PubMed]
8. Kulik JA, Mahler HI. Emotional support as a moderator of adjustment and compliance after coronary artery bypass surgery: a longitudinal study. J Behav Med. 1993;16:45–63. [PubMed]
9. Musick MA, Wilson J. Volunteering and depression: the role of psychological and social resources in different age groups. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:259–269. [PubMed]
10. Krause N, Herzog AR, Baker E. Providing support to others and well-being in later life. J Gerontol. 1992;47:P300–P311. [PubMed]
11. Wheeler JA, Gorey KM, Greenblatt B. The beneficial effects of volunteering for older volunteers and the people they serve: a meta-analysis. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 1998;47:69–79. [PubMed]
12. Van Willigen M. Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2000;55:S308–S18. [PubMed]
13. West DA, Kellner R, Moore-West M. The effects of loneliness: a review of the literature. Compr Psychiatry. 1986;27:351–363. [PubMed]
14. Schwartz CE, Sendor M. Helping others helps oneself: response shift effects in peer support. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1563–1575. [PubMed]
15. Musick MA, Herzog AR, House JS. Volunteering and mortality among older adults: findings from a national sample. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1999;54:S173–S80. [PubMed]
16. Brown SL, Nesse RM, Vinokur AD, Smith DM. Providing social support may be more beneficial than receiving it: results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychol Sci. 2003;14:320–327. [PubMed]
17. Davis C, Leveille S, Favaro S, LoGerfo M. Benefits to volunteers in a community-based health promotion and chronic illness self-management program for the elderly. J Gerontol Nurs. 1998;24:16–23. [PubMed]
18. Arnstein P, Vidal M, Wells-Federman C, Morgan B, Caudill M. From chronic pain patient to peer: benefits and risks of volunteering. Pain Manag Nurs. 2002;3:94–103. [PubMed]
19. Malchodi CS, Oncken C, Dornelas EA, Caramanica L, Gregonis E, Curry SL. The effects of peer counseling on smoking cessation and reduction. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:504–510. [PubMed]
20. Dennis CL. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40:321–332. [PubMed]
21. Winzelberg AJ, Classen C, Alpers GW, et al. Evaluation of an internet support group for women with primary breast cancer. Cancer. 2003;97:1164–1173. [PubMed]
22. Joseph DH, Griffin M, Hall RF, Sullivan ED. Peer coaching: an intervention for individuals struggling with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2001;27:703–710. [PubMed]
23. Wilson W, Pratt C. The impact of diabetes education and peer support upon weight and glycemic control of elderly persons with noninsulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) Am J Public Health. 1987;77:634–635. [PubMed]
24. Keyserling TC, Ammerman AS, Samuel-Hodge CD, et al. A diabetes management program for African American women with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2000;26:796–805. [PubMed]
25. 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;25:1576–1583. [PubMed]
26. Kownacki RJ, Shadish WR. Does alcoholics anonymous work? The results from a meta-analysis of controlled experiments. Subst Use Misuse. 1999;34:1897–1916. [PubMed]
27. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282:1737–1744. [PubMed]
28. Sharpe L, Sensky T, Timberlake N, Ryan B, Brewin CR, Allard S. A blind, randomized, controlled trial of cognitive-behavioural intervention for patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis: preventing psychological and physical morbidity. Pain. 2001;89:275–283. [PubMed]
29. Kroenke K, Swindle R. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for somatization and symptom syndromes: a critical review of controlled clinical trials. Psychother Psychosom. 2000;69:205–215. [PubMed]
30. Gilden JL, Hendryx MS, Clar S, Casia C, Singh SP. Diabetes support groups improve health care of older diabetic patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:147–150. [PubMed]
31. Broadhead RS, Heckathorn DD, Altice FL, et al. Increasing drug users’ adherence to HIV treatment: results of a peer- driven intervention feasibility study. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:235–246. [PubMed]
32. Matthews BA, Baker F, Hann DM, Denniston M, Smith TG. Health status and life satisfaction among breast cancer survivor peer support volunteers. Psycho-Oncology. 2002;11:199–211. [PubMed]
33. Helgeson VS, Cohen S, Schulz R, Yasko J. Group support interventions for women with breast cancer: who benefits from what? Health Psychol. 2000;19:107–114. [PubMed]
34. 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;39:1217–1223. [PubMed]
35. Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Ritter PL, Laurent D, Hobbs M. Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Effect Clin Pract. 2001;4:256–262. [PubMed]
36. Beck A, Scott J, Williams P, et al. A randomized trial of group outpatient visits for chronically ill older HMO members: the Cooperative Health Care Clinic. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:543–549. [PubMed]
37. Snoek FJ, van der Ven NC, Lubach CH, et al. Effects of cognitive behavioural group training (CBGT) in adult patients with poorly controlled insulin-dependent (type 1) diabetes: a pilot study. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;45:143–148. [PubMed]
38. Scott J, Gade G, McKenzie M, Venohr I. Cooperative health care clinics: a group approach to individual care. Geriatrics. 1998;53:68–70. 76–8, 81; quiz 82. [PubMed]
39. Escobar GJ, Braveman PA, Ackerson L, et al. A randomized comparison of home visits and hospital-based group follow- up visits after early postpartum discharge. Pediatrics. 2001;108:719–727. [PubMed]
40. Coleman EA, Grothaus LC, Sandhu N, Wagner EH. Chronic care clinics: a randomized controlled trial of a new model of primary care for frail older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:775–783. [PubMed]
41. Von Korff M, Moore JE, Lorig K, et al. A randomized trial of a lay person-led self-management group intervention for back pain patients in primary care. Spine. 1998;23:2608–2615. [PubMed]
42. Wagner EH, Grothaus LC, Sandhu N, et al. Chronic care clinics for diabetes in primary care: a system-wide randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:695–700. [PubMed]
43. Tang TS, Gillard ML, Funnell MM, et al. Developing a new generation of ongoing: diabetes self-management support interventions: a preliminary report. Diabetes Educ. 2005;31:91–97. [PubMed]
44. Anderson RM, Funnell MM, Butler PM, Arnold MS, Fitzgerald JT, Feste CC. Patient empowerment. Results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 1995;18:943–949. [PubMed]
45. 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;25:1159–1171. [PubMed]
46. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: WH Freeman and Co; 1997.
47. Funnell MM, Anderson RM, Arnold MS, et al. Empowerment: an idea whose time has come in diabetes education. Diabetes Educ. 1991;17:37–41. [PubMed]
48. Perry E, Swartz J, Brown S, Smith D, Kelly G, Swartz R. Peer mentoring: a culturally sensitive approach to end-of-life planning for long-term dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46:111–119. [PubMed]
49. Riegel B, Carlson B. Is individual peer support a promising intervention for persons with heart failure? J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004;19:174–183. [PubMed]
50. Lewin SA, Dick J, Pond P, et al. Lay health workers in primary and community health care [Review] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 (2): CD004015. [PubMed]
51. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethinic Disparities in Health C: Unequal treatment confronting racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002.
52. Norris SL, Chowdhury FM, Van Le K, et al. Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of persons with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2006;23:544–556. [PubMed]
53. Gary TL, Bone LR, Hill MN, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the effects of nurse case manager and community health worker interventions on risk factors for diabetes-related complications in urban African Americans. Prev Med. 2003;37:23–32. [PubMed]
54. Hooper GS, Yellowlees P, Marwick TH, Currie PJ, Bidstrup BP. Telehealth and the diagnosis and management of cardiac disease. J Telemed Telecare. 2001;7:249–256. [PubMed]
55. Piette JD. Satisfaction with automated telephone disease management calls and its relationship to their use. Diabetes Educ. 2000;26:1003–1010. [PubMed]
56. Piette JD, Weinberger M, McPhee SJ, Mah CA, Kraemer FB, Crapo LM. Do automated calls with nurse follow-up improve self-care and glycemic control among vulnerable patients with diabetes? Am J Med. 2000;108:20–27. [PubMed]
57. Piette JD, Mah CA. The feasibility of automated voice messaging as an adjunct to diabetes outpatient care. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:15–21. [PubMed]
58. Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, et al. A nurse-coordinated intervention for primary care patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: impact on glycemic control and health-related quality of life. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:59–66. [PubMed]
59. Wasson J, Gaudette C, Whaley F, Sauvigne A, Baribeau P, Welch HG. Telephone care as a substitute for routine clinic follow-up. JAMA. 1992;267:1788–1793. [PubMed]
60. DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Superko HR, et al. A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:721–729. [PubMed]
61. Piette JD, McPhee SJ, Weinberger M, Mah CA, Kraemer FB. Use of automated telephone disease management calls in an ethnically diverse sample of low-income patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:1302–1309. [PubMed]
62. Piette JD, Weinberger M, McPhee SJ, Mah CA, Kraemer FB, Crapo LM. Do automated calls with nurse follow-up improve self-care and glycemic control among vulnerable patients with diabetes? Am J Med. 1999;108:20–27. [PubMed]
63. Rudy RR, Rosenfeld LB, Galassi JP, Parker J, Schanberg R. Participants’ perceptions of a peer-helper, telephone-based social support intervention for melanoma patients. Health Commun. 2001;13:285–305. [PubMed]
64. Colon Y. Telephone support groups: a nontraditional approach to reaching underserved cancer patients. Cancer Pract. 1996;4:156–159. [PubMed]
65. Mermelstein HT, Holland JC. Psychotherapy by telephone. A therapeutic tool for cancer patients. Psychosomatics. 1991;32:407–412. [PubMed]
66. Rene J, Weinberger M, Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Katz BP. Reduction of joint pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis who have received monthly telephone calls from lay personnel and whose medical treatment regimens have remained stable. Arthritis Rheum. 1992;35:511–515. [PubMed]
67. Stewart MJ, Hart G, Mann K, Jackson S, Langille L, Reidy M. Telephone support group intervention for persons with hemophilia and HIV/AIDS and family caregivers. Int J Nurs Stud. 2001;38:209–225. [PubMed]
68. Curran VR, Church JG. A study of rural women's satisfaction with a breast cancer self-help network. J Telemed Telecare. 1999;5:47–54. [PubMed]
69. Heisler M, Piette J. “I Help You, and You Help Me”: facilitated telephone peer support among patients with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2005;31:869–879. [PubMed]
70. Heisler M, Halasyamani L, Resnicow K, et al. “I Am Not Alone”: The feasibility and acceptability of Interactive Voice Response (IVR)-Facilitated Telephone Peer Support among Older Adults with Heart Failure (HF) Congest Heart Fail. 2007;13:149–157. [PubMed]
71. Korytkowski M. When oral agents fail: practical barriers to starting insulin. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002;26(Suppl. 3):S18–S24. [PubMed]
72. Hunt LM, Valenzuela MA, Pugh JA. NIDDM patients’ fears and hopes about insulin therapy. The basis of patient reluctance. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:292–298. [PubMed]
73. Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Psychological issues and treatments for people with diabetes. J Clin Psychol. 2001;57:457–478. [PubMed]
74. Heisler M, Piette JD. “I help you, and you help me”: facilitated telephone peer support among patients with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2005;31:869–879. [PubMed]
75. Stewart MJ, Reutter L. Fostering partnerships between peers and professionals. Can J Nurs Res. 2001;33:97–116. [PubMed]
76. McKay HG, Glasgow RE, Feil EG, Boles SM, Barrera M., Jr Internet-based diabetes self-management and support: initial outcomes from the diabetes network project. Rehabil Psych. 2002;47:31–48.
77. Glasgow RE, Boles SM, McKay HG, Feil EG, Barrera M., Jr The D-Net diabetes self-management program: long-term implementation, outcomes, and generalization results. Prev Med. 2003;36:410–419. [PubMed]
78. Tate DF, Jackvony EH, Wing RR. Effects of Internet behavioral counseling on weight loss in adults at risk for type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2003;289:1833–1836. [PubMed]
79. Zrebiec JF. Internet communities: do they improve coping with diabetes? Diabetes Educ. 2005;31:825–828. 830–2, 834, 836. [PubMed]
80. Lorig KR, Ritter PL, Laurent DD, Plant K. Internet-based chronic disease self-management: a randomized trial. Med Care. 2006;44:964–971. [PubMed]

Articles from Family Practice are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press