Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22929458›Full record

Trial reportTrials2012

Scaling-up from an implementation trial to state-wide coverage: results from the preliminary Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study.

Edward D Janus, James D Best, Nathalie Davis-Lameloise, Benjamin Philpot, Andrea Hernan, Catherine M Bennett, Sharleen O'Reilly, Rob Carter, Erkki Vartiainen, James A Dunbar and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effects of total fat intake on body fatness in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effects of total fat intake on body weight.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Edward D JanusGreater Green Triangle University Department of Rural Health, Flinders University and Deakin University, PO Box 423, Warrnambool, VIC 3280, Australia.
James D Best
Nathalie Davis-Lameloise
Benjamin Philpot
Andrea Hernan
Catherine M Bennett
Sharleen O'Reilly
Rob Carter
Erkki Vartiainen
James A Dunbar
Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study research group
Deakin University · AUFlinders University · AUFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe successful Greater Green Triangle Diabetes Prevention Program (GGT DPP), a small implementation trial, has been scaled-up to the Victorian state-wide 'Life!' programme with over 10,000 individuals enrolled. The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS) is an evaluation of the translation from the GGT DPP to the Life! programme. We report results from the preliminary phase (pMDPS) of this evaluation.

methodsThe pMDPS is a randomised controlled trial with 92 individuals aged 50 to 75 at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes randomised to Life! or usual care. Intervention consisted of six structured 90-minute group sessions: five fortnightly sessions and the final session at 8 months. Participants underwent anthropometric and laboratory tests at baseline and 12 months, and provided self-reported psychosocial, dietary, and physical activity measures. Intervention group participants additionally underwent these tests at 3 months. Paired t tests were used to analyse within-group changes over time. Chi-square tests were used to analyse differences between groups in goals met at 12 months. Differences between groups for changes over time were tested with generalised estimating equations and analysis of covariance.

resultsIntervention participants significantly improved at 12 months in mean body mass index (-0.98 kg/m(2), standard error (SE) = 0.26), weight (-2.65 kg, SE = 0.72), waist circumference (-7.45 cm, SE = 1.15), and systolic blood pressure (-3.18 mmHg, SE = 1.26), increased high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (0.07 mmol/l, SE = 0.03), reduced energy from total (-2.00%, SE = 0.78) and saturated fat (-1.54%, SE = 0.41), and increased fibre intake (1.98 g/1,000 kcal energy, SE = 0.47). In controls, oral glucose at 2 hours deteriorated (0.59 mmol/l, SE = 0.27). Only waist circumference reduced significantly (-4.02 cm, SE = 0.95).Intervention participants significantly outperformed controls over 12 months for body mass index and fibre intake. After baseline adjustment, they also showed greater weight loss and reduced saturated fat versus total energy intake.At least 5% weight loss was achieved by 32% of intervention participants versus 0% controls.

conclusionspMDPS results indicate that scaling-up from implementation trial to state-wide programme is possible. The system design for Life! was fit for purpose of scaling-up from efficacy to effectiveness.

trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000507280.

Indexed as

Risk Reduction BehaviorAgedBiomarkersBlood GlucoseBlood PressureBody Mass IndexCaloric RestrictionChi-Square DistributionCholesterol, LDLDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Energy IntakeExerciseFemaleGlucose Tolerance TestGroup ProcessesHumansBiomarkersBlood GlucoseCholesterol, LDL

Identifiers

PMID22929458
PMCPMC3502588
OpenAlexW1577312171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.