Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: Studies suggest peer-led self-management training improves chronic illness outcomes by enhancing illness management self-efficacy. Limitations of most studies, however, include use of multiple outcome measures without predesignated primary outcomes and lack of randomized follow-up beyond 6 months. We conducted a 1-year randomized controlled trial of Homing in on Health (HIOH), a Chronic Disease Self-Management Program variant, addressing these limitations. METHODS: We randomized outpatients (N = 415) aged 40 years and older and who had 1 or more of 6 common chronic illnesses, plus functional impairment, to HIOH delivered in homes or by telephone for 6 weeks or to usual care. Primary outcomes were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-ltem short-form health survey's physical component (PCS-36) and mental component (MCS-36) summary scores. Secondary outcomes included the EuroQol EQ-5D and visual analog scale (EQ VAS), hospitalizations, and health care expenditures. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, HIOH delivered in the home led to significantly higher illness management self-efficacy at 6 weeks (effect size = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43) and at 6 months (0.17; 95% CI, 0.01-0.33), but not at 1 year. In-home HIOH had no significant effects on PCS-36 or MCS-36 scores and led to improvement in only 1 secondary outcome, the EQ VAS (1-year effect size = 0.40; CI, 0.14-0.66). HIOH delivered by telephone had no significant effects on any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite leading to improvements in self-efficacy comparable to those in other CDSMP studies, in-home HIOH had a limited sustained effect on only 1 secondary health status measure and no effect on utilization. These findings question the cost-effectiveness of peer-led illness self-management training from the health system perspective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jerant et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: