Type-2 diabetes primary prevention program implemented in routine primary care: a process evaluation study

Alvaro Sánchez, Carmen Silvestre, Natalia Campo, Gonzalo Grandes, PreDE research group, Alvaro Sánchez, Carmen Silvestre, Natalia Campo, Gonzalo Grandes, PreDE research group

Abstract

Background: Process evaluation studies are recommended to improve our understanding of underlying mechanisms related to clinicians, patients, context and intervention delivery that may impact on trial or program results and on their potential transferability to practice. This paper aims to document the translation of a type-2 diabetes (T2D) prevention program into the routine context of several primary care centers, assessing process indicators related to clinician adoption, patient recruitment, exposure to the intervention components and baseline characteristics.

Methods: An observational descriptive process evaluation study was conducted of the 2.5-year implementation of the Prevention of Diabetes in Euskadi cluster randomized trial in 14 primary care centers of the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza). The clinical intervention consisted of three components: (1) risk screening, (2) an educational intervention promoting healthy lifestyles, and (3) remote support (follow-up). A passive dissemination strategy of providing training and materials was used to translate the intervention into practice. All non-diabetic patients aged 45 to 70 years who were identified as being at high risk of developing T2D were eligible for study inclusion. The RE-AIM framework guided the process evaluation.

Results: Overall, 31.4 % of family physicians and 57.6 % of nurses participated in the study, while 4170 out of 67,293 (6.2 %) targeted patients who attended the centers during the implementation period were reached through the screening. Around half of the screened patients were identified as being at high risk of developing T2D (FINDRISC score ≥14). The rate of refusal to participate and the proportion of women were higher in the intervention group. Finally, 634 and 454 non-diabetic 45- to 70-year-old patients who were at high risk of T2D were included in the control and intervention group centers (intervention reach = 48 %). Significant variability in most process indicators was observed at center level.

Conclusion: The passive dissemination strategy has produced modest process indicators related to the adoption, reach and implementation of the intervention program, and reduced the possibility of its standardized application in heterogeneous contexts. The resulting different procedures and strategies used by the centers were associated with process outcomes. Context-specific variability and possible confounding will require rigorous procedures for analysis of the intervention effects.

Trial registration: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01365013 ). Registered on June 2011.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of participant recruitment

References

    1. Diabetes Action Now. An initiative of the World Health Organization and the International Diabetes Federation. World Health Organization, 2014. .
    1. Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson J, Valle T, Hämäläinen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1343–50. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200105033441801.
    1. The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(6):393–403. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012512.
    1. Pan XR, Li GW, Hu YH, Wang JX, Yang WY, An ZX, et al. Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance. The Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:537–44. doi: 10.2337/diacare.20.4.537.
    1. Lindstrom J, Ilanne-Parikka P, Peltonen M, Aunola S, et al. Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group. Sustained reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention: follow-up of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention study. Lancet. 2006;368:1673–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69701-8.
    1. Li G, Zhang P, Wang J, Gregg EW, et al. The long-term effect of lifestyle interventions to prevent diabetes in the China Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study: a 20-year follow-up study. Lancet. 2008;371:1783–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60766-7.
    1. Johnson M, Jones R, Freeman C, et al. Can diabetes prevention programmes be translated effectively into real-world settings and still deliver improved outcomes? A synthesis of evidence. Diabet Med. 2013;30:3–15. doi: 10.1111/dme.12018.
    1. Cardona-Morrell M, Rychetnik L, Morrell SL, Espinel PT, Bauman A. Reduction of diabetes risk in routine clinical practice: are physical activity and nutrition interventions feasible and are the outcomes from reference trials replicable? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:653. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-653.
    1. Whittemore R. A systematic review of the translational research on the Diabetes Prevention Program. Transl Behav Med. 2011;1:480–91. doi: 10.1007/s13142-011-0062-y.
    1. Simmons RK, Unwin N, Griffin SJ. International Diabetes Federation: an update of the evidence concerning the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;87:143–9. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.003.
    1. Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. Improving patient care. The implementation of change in clinical practice. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2004.
    1. Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013;347:f6753. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7086.
    1. MRC Health Services and Public Health Research Board . A framework for the development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: MRC; 2000.
    1. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-15.
    1. Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:134–47. doi: 10.1177/1524839904273387.
    1. Leontjevas R, Gerritsen DL, Koopmans RT, Smalbrugge M, Vernooij-Dassen MJ. Process evaluation to explore internal and external validity of the “Act in Case of Depression” care program in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13:488.
    1. Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004;180:S57–60.
    1. Basque Government – Department of Health and Consumer Affairs. Strategy for tackling the challenge of chronicity in the Basque country chronicity. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain; 2010.
    1. Sanchez A, Silvestre C, Sauto R, Martínez C, Grandes G, PreDE research group Feasibility and effectiveness of the implementation of a primary prevention programme for type 2 diabetes in routine primary care practice: a phase IV cluster randomised clinical trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:109. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-109.
    1. Lindström J, Tuomilehto J. The Diabetes Risk Score: a practical tool to predict type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:725–31. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.3.725.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
    1. Orueta JF, García-Álvarez A, Alonso-Morán E, Vallejo-Torres L, Nuño-Solinis R. Socioeconomic variation in the burden of chronic conditions and health care provision –analyzing administrative individual level data from the Basque Country. Spain BMC Public Health. 2013;13:870. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-870.
    1. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, et al. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380:37–43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2.
    1. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The Johns Hopkins ACG Case-Mix System Technical Reference Guide Manual Version 9.0. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; 2009.
    1. Glasgow RE, Nutting PA, King DK, Nelson CC, Cutter G, Gaglio B, et al. A practical randomized trial to improve diabetes care. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(12):1167–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30425.x.
    1. Lakerveld J, Bot S, Chinapaw M, van Tulder M, Kingo L, Nijpels G. Process evaluation of a lifestyle intervention to prevent diabetes and cardiovascular diseases in primary care. Health Promot Pract. 2012;13(5):696–706. doi: 10.1177/1524839912437366.
    1. Vermunt PW, Milder IE, Wielaard F, van Oers JA, Westert GP. An active strategy to identify individuals eligible for type 2 diabetes prevention by lifestyle intervention in Dutch primary care: the APHRODITE study. Fam Pract. 2010;27(3):312–9. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp100.
    1. Yank V, Stafford RS, Rosas LG, Ma J. Baseline reach and adoption characteristics in a randomized controlled trial of two weight loss interventions translated into primary care: a structured report of real-world applicability. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34(1):126–35. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.10.007.
    1. Laws RA, St George AB, Rychetnik L, Bauman AE. Diabetes prevention research: a systematic review of external validity in lifestyle interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(2):205–14. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.017.
    1. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(8):1261–7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1261.
    1. Pinnock H, Epiphaniou E, Taylor SJ. Phase IV implementation studies. The forgotten finale to the complex intervention methodology framework. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11 Suppl 2:S118–22. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-259RM.
    1. Price D, Bateman ED, Chisholm A, Papadopoulos NG, Bosnic-Anticevich S, Pizzichini E, et al. Complementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolution. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11 Suppl 2:S92–8. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201308-276RM.
    1. Rodriguez HP, Glenn BA, Olmos TT, Krist AH, Shimada SL, Kessler R, Heurtin-Roberts S, Bastani R. Real-world implementation and outcomes of health behavior and mental health assessment. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27(3):356–66.
    1. Wilcox S, Parra-Medina D, Felton GM, Poston MB, McClain A. Adoption and implementation of physical activity and dietary counseling by community health center providers and nurses. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(5):602–12.
    1. Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF, Etz RS, Balasubramanian BA, Donahue KE, Leviton LC, et al. Fidelity versus flexibility: translating evidence-based research into practice. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(5 Suppl):S381–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.005.
    1. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ. 2004;328(7455):1561–3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1561.
    1. Aziz Z, Absetz P, Oldroyd J, Pronk NP, Oldenburg B. A systematic review of real-world diabetes prevention programs: learnings from the last 15 years. Implement Sci. 2015;10:172. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0354-6.
    1. Vermunt PW, Milder IE, Wielaard F, Baan CA, Schelfhout JD, Westert GP, van Oers HA. Implementation of a lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes prevention in Dutch primary care: opportunities for intervention delivery. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:79.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe