ArticleJournal of nutritional science2024
Barriers and enablers to engagement with a type 2 diabetes remission project in the North East of England: qualitative perspectives of patients.
Article in Journal of nutritional science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health and Dietary Disparities in the North of England: A Report From Nutrition North on Key Challenges in the North of England.Nutrition bulletin · 2026Article
- A randomized controlled trial protocol comparing low-calorie Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets for diabetes remission in individuals with type 2 diabetes in northern Lebanon: an intervention mapping-based approach.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Insights into diabetes remission services: perspectives from general practitioners, family physicians and multidisciplinary teams.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- Understanding Participant Experiences During the Very Low-Calorie Diet Phase of a Diabetes Remission Trial in Singapore: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis.AACE endocrinology and diabetesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This qualitative research sought to identify factors influencing patient choice of, and patient-related internal and external enablers and barriers to engagement with, type 2 diabetes (T2D) remission strategies offered by the Remission in diabetes (REMI.D) project. Patients had a choice of three diets: Total Diet Replacement (TDR)-Formula Food Products, TDR-Food, and Healthy lifestyle approach; and three activity pathways: Everyday life, General Practitioner referral, and Social hub. Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis used the Framework Method and NVivo 12 to assist with generation and organisation of codes, inductive and deductive (Theoretical Domains Framework). The REMI.D project was a place-based approach (place in this case being defined as two local authorities with significant rates of deprivation) situated in the North East of England. Twenty patients out of a possible 65 patients took part. Areas of interest included: patient choice, patient intention, patient adherence, patient non-adherence, and patient stigma. Addition of a more moderate dietary strategy (not dissimilar to the diet in the Healthier You NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme) to the existing NHS England T2D Path to Remission programme may enable more patients to achieve remission or delayed progression with deprescribing of diabetes medications. Embedding a tailored physical activity path within or as a bolt-on to the NHS programme requires consideration. Limited resources should be targeted towards patients who identify with more barriers or fewer opportunities for health behaviour modification. Further research on use of virtual programmes in deprived areas is warranted.
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.