4.6 Article

A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial for Preventing Type 2 Diabetes

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 105, Issue 11, Pages 2328-2334

Publisher

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302641

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R18 DK079855]
  2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [57398]
  3. Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute [UL1RR025741]
  4. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. We evaluated the weight loss effectiveness of a YMCA model for the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle intervention. Methods. Between July 2008 and November 2010, we individually randomized 509 overweight or obese, low-income, nondiabetic adults with elevated blood glucose in Indianapolis, Indiana, to receive standard care plus brief lifestyle counseling or be offered a group-based YMCA adaptation of the DPP (YDPP). Primary outcome was mean weight loss difference at 12 months. In our intention-to-treat analyses, we used longitudinal linear or logistic regression, multiply imputing missing observations. We used instrumental variables regression to estimate weight loss effectiveness among participants completing 9 or more intervention lessons. Results. In the YDPP arm, 161 (62.6%) participants attended >= 1 lesson and 103 (40.0%) completed 9 or more lessons. In intention-to-treat analysis, mean 12-month weight loss was 2.3 kilograms (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1, 3.4 kg) more for the YDPP arm than for standard care participants. In instrumental variable analyses, persons attending 9 or more lessons had a 5.3-kilogram (95% CI = 2.8, 7.9 kg) greater weight loss than did those with standard care alone. Conclusions. The YMCA model for DPP delivery achieves meaningful weight loss at 12 months among low-income adults.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available