Search

Aim: To explore the role of socioeconomic status (SES) in participation, programme attendance, programme acceptability, adherence to lifestyle guidelines, drop-out, and effectiveness in the SLIMMER diabetes prevention intervention.Methods: SLIMMER was a randomised controlled intervention, carried out in a real-world setting, targeting 40- to 70-year-old adults at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes (n=316). The intervention group participated in a 10-month combined dietary and physical activity programme. Measurements were carried out at baseline, 12months, and 18months. Effectiveness was determined for fasting insulin, HbA1c, weight, BMI, waist circumference, and waist-to-height-ratio. Differences between the low SES (no, primary, or lower secondary school) and higher SES group were tested using logistic regression and ANCOVA.Results: Fifty-two percent of the SLIMMER participants had a low SES. No differences in participation were observed between the low and higher SES group. The most important reason for non-participation in the low SES group was 'lack of interest' (32%), whereas in the higher SES group this was 'I already exercise enough' (31%). Attendance, acceptability, adherence, drop-out, and effectiveness after 12months were similar in the low and higher SES group. After 18months, the low SES group seemed to maintain slightly better effects for fasting insulin, HbA1c, and waist circumference.Conclusions: The current study showed that participation, attendance, acceptability, adherence, drop-out, and effectiveness of the SLIMMER intervention were in general not modified by socioeconomic status. The SLIMMER intervention can contribute to health promotion for individuals in both low and higher socioeconomic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Pilot-testing of the adapted Study on Lifestyle intervention and Impaired glucose tolerance Maastricht (SLIM) and to determine its feasibility and likelihood of achieving desired impact. Methods Pilot intervention study (a 10-month combined lifestyle intervention) using a one group pre-test post-test design with on-going process measures (i.e. reach, acceptability, implementation integrity, and applicability) and several health outcomes (e.g. body weight). Results In total, 31 subjects participated in the SLIMMER (SLIM iMplementation Experience Region Noord- en Oost-Gelderland) intervention. Participant weight loss was −3.5 kg ( p = 0.005). Both participants and health care professionals (i.e. practice nurses, dieticians, and physiotherapists) were satisfied with the intervention. The intervention was implemented as planned and appeared to be suitable for application in practice. Refinements have been identified and will be made prior to further implementation and evaluation. Conclusion Implementation of the SLIMMER intervention is feasible in a Dutch real-life setting and it is likely to achieve desired impact. Practising and optimising the intervention creates local support for SLIMMER among stakeholders. Practice implications Performing a pilot study on the basis of a structured approach is a meaningful step in the process of optimising the feasibility and potential impact of an evidence-based intervention in a real-life setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]