Relative contributions of naturalistic and constructed support

Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes

Manuel Barrera, Deborah J. Toobert, Lisa A. Strycker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Do distinct sources of social support have differential effects on health? Although previous research has contrasted family and friend support (naturalistic support), research on the relative effects of naturalistic support and constructed support (e.g., support groups) is extremely rare. Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes were conducted that assessed the independent effects of naturalistic and constructed support on physical activity and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were women diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from the intervention arms of two randomized controlled trials: primarily European American women (Study 1; N = 163) and exclusively Hispanic women (Study 2; N = 142). Measures assessed physical activity, HbA1c, and friend and family support at baseline and at 6 months, as well as group support after 6 months of intervention. In Study 1, only group support was related to increases in physical activity (ΔR2 =.036). In Study 2, group support and family support showed independent effects on increases in physical activity (ΔR2 =.047 and.060, respectively). Also, group support was related to decreases in HbA1c in Study 1 (ΔR2 =.031) and Study 2 (ΔR2 =.065). Overall, constructed (group) support was related to outcomes most consistently, but naturalistic (family) support showed some independent relation to physical activity improvement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)59-69
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Behavioral Medicine
Volume37
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Exercise
Self-Help Groups
Glycosylated Hemoglobin A
Hispanic Americans
Research
Social Support
Randomized Controlled Trials
Health

Keywords

  • HbA1c
  • Physical activity
  • Social support
  • Support groups
  • Type 2 diabetes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Relative contributions of naturalistic and constructed support : Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes. / Barrera, Manuel; Toobert, Deborah J.; Strycker, Lisa A.

In: Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 37, No. 1, 02.2014, p. 59-69.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Barrera, Manuel ; Toobert, Deborah J. ; Strycker, Lisa A. / Relative contributions of naturalistic and constructed support : Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes. In: Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 37, No. 1. pp. 59-69.
@article{8f10090b94114f098af455bdfbbab43c,
title = "Relative contributions of naturalistic and constructed support: Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes",
abstract = "Do distinct sources of social support have differential effects on health? Although previous research has contrasted family and friend support (naturalistic support), research on the relative effects of naturalistic support and constructed support (e.g., support groups) is extremely rare. Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes were conducted that assessed the independent effects of naturalistic and constructed support on physical activity and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were women diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from the intervention arms of two randomized controlled trials: primarily European American women (Study 1; N = 163) and exclusively Hispanic women (Study 2; N = 142). Measures assessed physical activity, HbA1c, and friend and family support at baseline and at 6 months, as well as group support after 6 months of intervention. In Study 1, only group support was related to increases in physical activity (ΔR2 =.036). In Study 2, group support and family support showed independent effects on increases in physical activity (ΔR2 =.047 and.060, respectively). Also, group support was related to decreases in HbA1c in Study 1 (ΔR2 =.031) and Study 2 (ΔR2 =.065). Overall, constructed (group) support was related to outcomes most consistently, but naturalistic (family) support showed some independent relation to physical activity improvement.",
keywords = "HbA1c, Physical activity, Social support, Support groups, Type 2 diabetes",
author = "Manuel Barrera and Toobert, {Deborah J.} and Strycker, {Lisa A.}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s10865-012-9465-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "59--69",
journal = "Journal of Behavioral Medicine",
issn = "0160-7715",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Relative contributions of naturalistic and constructed support

T2 - Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes

AU - Barrera, Manuel

AU - Toobert, Deborah J.

AU - Strycker, Lisa A.

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - Do distinct sources of social support have differential effects on health? Although previous research has contrasted family and friend support (naturalistic support), research on the relative effects of naturalistic support and constructed support (e.g., support groups) is extremely rare. Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes were conducted that assessed the independent effects of naturalistic and constructed support on physical activity and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were women diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from the intervention arms of two randomized controlled trials: primarily European American women (Study 1; N = 163) and exclusively Hispanic women (Study 2; N = 142). Measures assessed physical activity, HbA1c, and friend and family support at baseline and at 6 months, as well as group support after 6 months of intervention. In Study 1, only group support was related to increases in physical activity (ΔR2 =.036). In Study 2, group support and family support showed independent effects on increases in physical activity (ΔR2 =.047 and.060, respectively). Also, group support was related to decreases in HbA1c in Study 1 (ΔR2 =.031) and Study 2 (ΔR2 =.065). Overall, constructed (group) support was related to outcomes most consistently, but naturalistic (family) support showed some independent relation to physical activity improvement.

AB - Do distinct sources of social support have differential effects on health? Although previous research has contrasted family and friend support (naturalistic support), research on the relative effects of naturalistic support and constructed support (e.g., support groups) is extremely rare. Two studies of women with type 2 diabetes were conducted that assessed the independent effects of naturalistic and constructed support on physical activity and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants were women diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from the intervention arms of two randomized controlled trials: primarily European American women (Study 1; N = 163) and exclusively Hispanic women (Study 2; N = 142). Measures assessed physical activity, HbA1c, and friend and family support at baseline and at 6 months, as well as group support after 6 months of intervention. In Study 1, only group support was related to increases in physical activity (ΔR2 =.036). In Study 2, group support and family support showed independent effects on increases in physical activity (ΔR2 =.047 and.060, respectively). Also, group support was related to decreases in HbA1c in Study 1 (ΔR2 =.031) and Study 2 (ΔR2 =.065). Overall, constructed (group) support was related to outcomes most consistently, but naturalistic (family) support showed some independent relation to physical activity improvement.

KW - HbA1c

KW - Physical activity

KW - Social support

KW - Support groups

KW - Type 2 diabetes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894904990&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84894904990&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10865-012-9465-6

DO - 10.1007/s10865-012-9465-6

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 59

EP - 69

JO - Journal of Behavioral Medicine

JF - Journal of Behavioral Medicine

SN - 0160-7715

IS - 1

ER -