Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27404094›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2016

Engagement, Retention, and Progression to Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Analysis of the Cluster-Randomised "Let's Prevent Diabetes" Trial.

Laura J Gray, Thomas Yates, Jacqui Troughton, Kamlesh Khunti, Melanie J Davies, Let’s Prevent Diabetes Team

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pre-diabetes: opportunity or overdiagnosis?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

6 authors.

Laura J GrayUniversity of Leicester, Department of Health Sciences, Leicester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9284-9321
Thomas YatesUniversity of Leicester, Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Jacqui TroughtonLeicester Diabetes Centre, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Kamlesh KhuntiUniversity of Leicester, Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Melanie J DaviesUniversity of Leicester, Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Let’s Prevent Diabetes Team

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1272
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global priority. Let's Prevent Diabetes is a group-based diabetes prevention programme; it was evaluated in a cluster-randomised trial, in which the primary analysis showed a reduction in T2DM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.48-1.14, p = 0.18). We examined the association of engagement and retention with the Let's Prevent Diabetes prevention programme and T2DM incidence. METHODS AND

findingsWe used data from a completed cluster-randomised controlled trial including 43 general practices randomised to receive either standard care or a 6-h group structured education programme with an annual refresher course for 2 y. The primary outcome was progression to T2DM at 3 y. The characteristics of those who attended the initial education session (engagers) versus nonengagers and those who attended all sessions (retainers) versus nonretainers were compared. Risk reduction of progression to T2DM by level of attendance was compared to standard care. Eight hundred and eighty participants were recruited, with 447 to the intervention arm, of which 346 (77.4%) were engagers and 130 (29.1%) were retainers. Retainers and engagers were more likely to be older, leaner, and nonsmokers than nonretainers/nonengagers. Engagers were also more likely to be male and be from less socioeconomically deprived areas than nonengagers. Participants who attended the initial session and at least one refresher session were less likely to develop T2DM compared to those in the control arm (30 people of 248 versus 67 people of 433, HR 0.38 [95% CI 0.24-0.62]). Participants who were retained in the programme were also less likely to develop T2DM compared to those in the control arm (7 people of 130 versus 67 people of 433, HR 0.12 [95% CI 0.05-0.28]). Being retained in the programme was also associated with improvements in glucose, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight, waist circumference, anxiety, quality of life, and daily step count. Given that the data used are from a clinical trial, those taking part might reflect a more motivated sample than the population, which should be taken into account when interpreting the results.

conclusionsThis study suggests that being retained/engaged in a relatively low-resource, pragmatic diabetes prevention programme for those at high risk is associated with reductions in the progression to T2DM in comparison to those who receive standard care. Nonengagers and nonretainers share similar high-risk traits. Service providers of programmes should focus on reaching these hard-to-reach groups.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN80605705.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Disease ProgressionFemaleHealth EducationHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceRetrospective StudiesRisk Reduction Behavior

Identifiers

PMID27404094
PMCPMC4942137

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.