Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33246460›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2020

The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme: an observational study of service delivery and patient experience.

Rhiannon E Hawkes, Elaine Cameron, Sarah Cotterill, Peter Bower, David P French

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Preventing type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study exploring the complexity of health-related practices in people with prediabetes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rhiannon E HawkesManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Univeraity of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Rhiannon.Hawkes@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0479-8163
Elaine CameronManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Univeraity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sarah CotterillDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Peter BowerDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
David P FrenchManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Univeraity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

Department of Health 16/48/07Health Services and Delivery Research Programme 16/48/07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a nine-month, group-based behavioural intervention for adults in England at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Four independent providers were commissioned to deliver versions of the NHS-DPP, in line with NHS England specifications. This observational study maps NHS-DPP delivery in routine practice against the NHS specification, and compares service delivery with observed patient experiences.

methodsResearchers observed service delivery across eight complete NHS-DPP courses (118 sessions, median 14 sessions per course), consenting 455 participants (36 staff, 398 patients, 21 accompanying persons). Key features of NHS-DPP delivery were described using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework. Researchers wrote detailed field notes during each session, including observations of patient experience. Field notes were content analysed; instances of positive and negative experiences were labelled and grouped into categories. Researchers used a novel method of comparing observed patient experiences to variations in programme delivery.

resultsDelivery broadly followed NHS England's specification and the plans set out by providers. Deviations included the scheduling and larger group sizes in some sessions. There was variation in the type and format of activities delivered by providers. Positive patient experiences included engagement, satisfaction with the programme, good within-group relationships and reported behavioural changes. Negative experiences included poor scheduling, large groups, and dissatisfaction with the venue. Where more interactive and visual activities were delivered in smaller groups of 10-15 people with good rapport, there were generally more instances of positive patient experiences, and where there were structural issues such as problems with the scheduling of sessions, poor venues and inadequate resources, there tended to be more negative patient experiences.

conclusionsAddressing issues that we have identified as being linked to negative experiences with the NHS-DPP could increase uptake, reduce patient drop-out and increase the overall effectiveness of the programme. In particular, modifying structural aspects of the NHS-DPP (e.g. reliable session scheduling, reducing group sizes, enough session resources) and increasing interaction appear particularly promising for improving these outcomes.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Preventive Health ServicesState MedicineAdultEnglandFemaleHumansMalePatient Outcome AssessmentBehaviour changeDiabetes Prevention ProgrammeIntervention descriptionIntervention implementationNon-diabetic hyperglycaemiaPatient experienceType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID33246460
PMCPMC7694420
OpenAlexW3107312212

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.