ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2014
Beginning a patient-centered approach in the design of a diabetes prevention program.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design and methods of "diaBEAT-it!": a hybrid preference/randomized control trial design using the RE-AIM framework.Contemporary clinical trials · 2014Trial
- Motivation and Problem Solving Versus Mobile 360° Videos to Promote Enrollment in the National Diabetes Prevention Program's Lifestyle Change Program Among People With Prediabetes: Protocol for a Randomized Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Technology Use for Diabetes Problem Solving in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Relationship to Glycemic Control.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to identify patient preferences for different components of a local diabetes prevention program that would improve reach. A secondary purpose was to determine if patient characteristics were related to program preferences.
methodsParticipants were identified through electronic medical records from two family medicine clinics in Virginia. Participants completed a mailed survey addressing demographics, economic status, risk factors for diabetes, and preferences regarding diabetes prevention interventions-delivery mode, program length, and duration.
resultsTwenty-nine percent of eligible participants responded (n = 142); 83% of participants were at risk for diabetes and 82% had a household income <$20,000. When presented with the choice between a class-based vs. a technology-based program, 83% preferred a technology-based program. Whites were less likely to choose the technology-based program, with no significant differences based on age, education, income, or gender.
conclusionsContrary to beliefs that lower income individuals may not use technology-based interventions, lower socioeconomic patients indicated a preference for a technology- and telephone-supported diabetes prevention program over in-person class approaches. Findings provide formative data to support the design of a patient-centered, technology-enhanced diabetes prevention program in a real-world setting, thereby increasing potential participation and reach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.