Table 2.
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
QUANTITATIVE STUDIES | ||||
| ||||
STUDY | PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES | RESULTS | SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES | FINDINGS |
| ||||
Aftab et al., (2018) (1) | Diabetes control | Significant reduction diabetes in control (p = .03) | ||
General health status | Significant reduction on the mental subscale of the SF-36 from baseline to 60-week follow-up (p = .02) | |||
Serious mental illness symptoms | No significant reduction in depression or psychopathology | |||
Functioning | Significant reduction in functioning (p = .037). No significant reduction in disability | |||
| ||||
Chwastiak et al., (2018) (2) | Diabetes control | Improved diabetes control from baseline to 3-month follow-up (p = .049) | ||
BMI | Reduced BMI from baseline to 3-month follow-up (p = .04) | |||
Serious mental illness symptoms | No significant changes in measures of psychiatric symptoms | |||
| ||||
McKibbin et al., (2010) (3) | Diabetes control General health status |
No significant change in diabetes control No significant change in BMI |
Adverse events | 2 participants did not complete the follow-up assessment due to inpatient hospitalisation |
Significant reduction on the physical symptoms subscale of the SF-12 from baseline to 16-week follow-up (p = .05). | ||||
Serious mental illness symptoms | No significant change on the mental health subscale. | |||
Significant reduction in depression symptoms from baseline to 16-week follow-up (p = .01). No significant change in measures of psychiatric symptom severity Significant improvement in functioning from baseline to 16-week follow-up (p = .01). No significant reduction in disability rating (p = .06) |
||||
Functioning | ||||
| ||||
Sajatovic et al., (2011) (4) | Diabetes control | No significant change in diabetes control | ||
General health status | No significant change in general health status or BMI | |||
Serious mental illness symptoms | Significant reduction in depression (p = .01) and psychopathy (p = .01) at 16-week follow-up. No significant change in psychiatric symptom severity | |||
Functioning | Significant reduction in functioning (p = .01) and no significant reduction in disability (p = .06) | |||
| ||||
Sajatovic et al., (2017) (5) | Diabetes control | No significant change in diabetes control | Adverse events | 119 adverse events among 74 participants. Adverse events occurred among 6 peer educators, 30 participants receiving treatment as usual, and 38 TTIM participants. There were three deaths (TTIM, n = 2; treatment as usual, n = 1). |
General health status | No significant change in general health status or BMI | |||
Serious mental illness symptoms | Significant reduction in psychopathy (p < 001) and depression (p = .016) from baseline to 60-week follow-up. No significant reduction in psychiatric symptom severity. | |||
Functioning | No significant reduction in disability ratings. Significant reduction in disability from baseline to 60-week follow-up (p = .003) | |||
| ||||
QUALITATIVE STUDIES | ||||
| ||||
STUDY | THEMES | FINDINGS | SECONDARY OUTCOMES | FINDINGS |
| ||||
Blixen et al., (2014) (6) | Positive group experience | Delivering the intervention increased peer educators’ confidence and created group cohesiveness | ||
Success with learning the manual | Peer educators had a positive experience learning the training manual content | |||
Increased knowledge of T2D/SMI | Peer educators developed a greater understanding of their health conditions | |||
Improved self-management of T2D/SMI | Becoming a peer educator increased awareness of the importance of effective self-management | |||
Increased self-confidence | Becoming a peer educator increased confidence in knowing their role and supporting group members | |||
United in purpose | All group members had the same goal | |||
| ||||
Lawless et al., (2016) (7) | Disseminating health information | Good attendance from study participants Positive experience delivering the intervention |
Participant attendance | 80 (80%) participants attended at least one session, 49 (61%) completed all 12 sessions |
Facilitating group processes | Nurse educators encouraged the development of a therapeutic environment | Adverse events | Peer educators’ illness severity, participants’ symptoms impacting some group interactions | |
Minimising logistical barriers | Peer educators used effective modelling strategies Nurse educators used various strategies to overcome logistical barriers encourage attendance |
|||
Coordinating interdisciplinary communication | Nurse educators provided care-linkage to enhance communication between participants’ healthcare providers | |||
|
Key: BMI = Body Mass Index; TTIM = Targeted Training in Illness Management.