Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36926593›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2023

Comparison of weight change between face-to-face and digital delivery of the English National Health service diabetes prevention programme: An exploratory non-inferiority study with imputation of plausible weight outcomes.

Antonia M Marsden, Mark Hann, Emma Barron, Jamie Ross, Jonathan Valabhji, Elizabeth Murray, Sarah Cotterill

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
10.2field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Banting memorial lecture 2025: Aligning clinical practice, policy and research.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Antonia M MarsdenCentre for Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Mark HannCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Emma BarronNHS England, London SE1 6LH, UK.
Jamie RossCentre for Primary Care, Wolfson Institute of Population Health Science, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AD, UK.
Jonathan ValabhjiNHS England, London SE1 6LH, UK.
Elizabeth MurrayResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Pond Street, London NW3 2PF, UK.
Sarah CotterillCentre for Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
University of Manchester · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBNHS EnglandQueen Mary University of London · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Worldwide evidence suggests face-to-face diabetes prevention programmes are effective in preventing and delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes by encouraging behaviour change towards weight loss, healthy eating, and increased exercise. There is an absence of evidence on whether digital delivery is as effective as face-to-face. During 2017-18 patients in England were offered the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme as group-based face-to-face delivery, digital delivery ('digital-only') or a choice between digital and face-to-face ('digital-choice'). The contemporaneous delivery allowed for a robust non-inferiority study, comparing face-to-face with digital only and digital choice cohorts. Changes in weight at 6 months were missing for around half of participants. Here we take a novel approach, estimating the average effect in all 65,741 individuals who enrolled in the programme, by making a range of plausible assumptions about weight change in individuals who did not provide outcome data. The benefit of this approach is that it includes everyone who enrolled in the programme, not restricted to those who completed. We analysed the data using multiple linear regression models. Under all scenarios explored, enrolment in the digital diabetes prevention programme was associated with clinically significant reductions in weight which were at least equivalent to weight loss in the face-to-face programme. Digital services can be just as effective as face-to-face in delivering a population-based approach to the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Imputation of plausible outcomes is a feasible methodological approach, suitable for analysis of routine data in settings where outcomes are missing for non-attenders.

Indexed as

(BMI), Body Mass IndexCCG, Clinical Commissioning GroupCI, Confidence intervalCohort studiesDiabetes mellitus, Type 2Diet, healthyDIPLOMA, Diabetes Prevention – Long Term Multimethod AssessmenteHealth: TelemedicineFPG, Fasting Blood Glucose (a test for diagnosing diabetes and the risk of diabetes)HbA1c, Haemoglobin A1c (a test for diagnosing diabetes and the risk of diabetes)IMD, Index of Multiple deprivationMethod for dealing with missing dataNational health programsNHS DPP, National Health Service Diabetes Prevention ProgrammeNon-inferiorityPreventive health servicesSelf-managementSTP, Sustainability and Transformation PartnershipWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID36926593
PMCPMC10011422
OpenAlexW4321368250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read102
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.