ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Supporting people with type 2 diabetes mellitus through the REDE D+ social prescribing program: feasibility of a non-randomized pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: REDE D+, a social prescribing (SP) program, offers a complementary approach to traditional T2DM management by connecting people to community activities designed to support them in self-care behaviors and health literacy (HL). This study aims to assess the feasibility of a pilot study by evaluating recruitment, adherence and retention rates among people with T2DM, health professionals (nurses), community stakeholders, while exploring preliminary results in improvements on self-care behaviors and HL. Methods: This 12-week non-randomized pilot cohort study, conducted in primary and community healthcare settings in accordance with the guidelines of the Medical Research Council, involved a personalized assessment during a diabetes nursing consultation, followed by the prescription of community-based activities. Subsequently, a social prescriber nurse acts as a liaison between the two settings through structured follow-up, ensuring the continuity of the prescribed community-based activities. Primary outcomes were feasibility (recruitment, adherence, and retention rates). The secondary outcomes included anthropometric values [weight, body mass index (BMI), and abdominal perimeter], clinical values [glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)], measures of self-care, HL, diabetes knowledge, quality of life, and wellbeing. Descriptive and exploratory inferential analyses were conducted to examine preliminary patterns. Magnitude of effect was estimated via Cohen's d, allowing for a standardized assessment of improvements across the secondary outcomes. Results: The REDE D+ program revealed an 87.8% recruitment rate across the three participant groups, a 90% retention rate, and a good level of adherence to group community-based activities (94.4%). The secondary results suggest a small effect size of the SP intervention on weight, BMI, abdominal circumference, and HbA1c, and some improvements in HL and self-care behavior with a medium effect. The indicators related to physical activity and quality of life were the domains that showed the most statistically significant effects. Conclusions: The REDE D+ program has proven to be feasible, yielding positive results in terms of recruitment, retention, and adherence among people with T2DM. Preliminary secondary results suggest that has the potential to support the improvement of self-care behaviors and promote HL. However, future research is needed to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in large-scale studies.
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.