ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2025
Social Vulnerability and National Diabetes Prevention Program Recognition Status.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Start-Up and Implementation Costs for a Community-Based Culturally Tailored Diabetes Prevention Program.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2026Article
- Navigating CDC recognition for the National DPP in socially vulnerable communities: barriers, facilitators, and recommendations.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe CDC National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) aims to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Organizations delivering the National DPP receive pending, preliminary, full, or full-plus recognition status based on specific program criteria and outcomes. Achieving full/full-plus recognition is critical for organizations to sustain the program and receive reimbursements to cover costs, but organizations in disadvantaged areas may face barriers to obtaining this level of recognition. This study examined the association between county-level social vulnerability and full/full-plus recognition status within the National DPP.
methodsUsing the 2022 National DPP registry and the 2018 CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), a three-level categorical dependent variable was created (n=843): counties without organizations having full/full-plus recognition, counties with at least one organization not having full/full-plus recognition, and counties with all organizations having full/full-plus recognition. A multinomial logit model was analyzed in 2023 to examine the association between SVI and in-person full/full-plus recognition organizations at the county level, adjusting for confounders.
resultsCompared to counties with low social vulnerability, counties with higher social vulnerability had significantly higher odds of having no organizations with full/full-plus recognition. For example, counties with high SVI had 2.63 (95% CI: 1.55-4.47) times higher odds of having no organizations with full/full-plus recognition compared to having all organizations with full/full-plus CDC recognition.
conclusionsThe findings suggest disparities in the National DPP recognition status among organizations in vulnerable communities. Developing strategies to ensure organizations in high social vulnerability areas achieve at least full recognition status is critical for program sustainability and reducing diabetes-related health disparities.
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.