Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29467134›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme in England: formative evaluation of the programme in early phase implementation.

Linda Penn, Angela Rodrigues, Anna Haste, Marta M Marques, Kirsten Budig, Kirby Sainsbury, Ruth Bell, Vera Araújo-Soares, Martin White, Carolyn Summerbell and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
23.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Knowledge in Motion: A Comprehensive Review of Evidence-Based Human Kinetics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Is the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme Intervention Delivered as Planned? An Observational Study of Fidelity of Intervention Delivery.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2021
    Observational
  19. Healthcare Voucher Scheme for Screening of Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Population-Based Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  20. Observational
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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Linda PennInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Angela RodriguesInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Anna HasteInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Marta M MarquesInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Kirsten BudigInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Kirby SainsburyInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Ruth BellInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Vera Araújo-SoaresInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Martin WhiteInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Carolyn SummerbellFuse: UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Elizabeth GoyderSchool of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Alan BrennanSchool of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Ashley J AdamsonInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Falko F SniehottaInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKDepartment of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-001Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEvaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation.

designWe reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures.

settingSeven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England.

interventionsIntensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9 months, delivered face to face to groups of 15-20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks.

participantsParticipants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group.

findingsThe NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance.

conclusionsThe NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeHealth Plan ImplementationProgram EvaluationAdultBehavior TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EnglandExerciseHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationRisk AssessmentState Medicinehealth policyorganisational developmentpublic health

Identifiers

PMID29467134
PMCPMC5855311
OpenAlexW2789580285

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.