Search

Background: This 7 year NIHR programme [2011-2018] tests the primary hypothesis that the NDPS diet and physical activity intervention will reduce the risk of transition to type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in groups at high risk of Type 2 diabetes. The NDPS programme recognizes the need to reduce intervention costs through group delivery and the use of lay mentors with T2DM, the realities of normal primary care, and the complexity of the current glycaemic categorisation of T2DM risk.Methods: NDPS identifies people at highest risk of T2DM on the databases of 135 general practices in the East of England for further screening with ab fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c]. Those with an elevated fasting plasma glucose [impaired fasting glucose or IFG] with or without an elevated HbA1c [non -diabetic hyperglycaemia; NDH] are randomised into three treatment arms: a control arm receiving no trial intervention, an arm receiving an intensive bespoke group-based diet and physical activity intervention, and an arm receiving the same intervention with enhanced support from people with T2DM trained as diabetes prevention mentors [DPM]. The primary end point is cumulative transition rates to T2DM between the two intervention groups, and between each intervention group and the control group at 46 months. Participants with screen detected T2DM are randomized into an equivalent prospective controlled trial with the same intervention and control arms with glycaemic control [HbA1c] at 46 months as the primary end point. Participants with NDH and a normal fasting plasma glucose are randomised into an equivalent prospective controlled intervention trial with follow up for 40 months. The intervention comprises six education sessions for the first 12 weeks and then up to 15 maintenance sessions until intervention end, all delivered in groups, with additional support from a DPM in one treatment arm.Discussion: The NDPS programme reports in 2018 and will provide trial outcome data for a group delivered diabetes prevention intervention, supported by lay mentors with T2DM, with intervention in multiple at risk glycaemic categories, and that takes into account the realities of normal clinical practice.Trial Registration: ISRCTN34805606 (Retrospectively registered 16.3.16). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Previous studies have identified a substantial prevalence of a blood pressure difference between arms in various populations, but not patients with type 2 diabetes. Recognition of such a difference would be important as a potential cause of underestimation of blood pressure. Aim To measure prevalence of an inter-arm blood pressure difference in patients with type 2 diabetes, and to estimate how frequently blood pressure measurements could be erroneously underestimated if an inter-arm difference is unrecognised. Design of study Cross-sectional study. Setting Five surgeries covered by three general practices, Devon, England. Method Patients with type 2 diabetes underwent bilateral simultaneous blood pressure measurements using a validated protocol. Mean blood pressures were calculated for each arm to derive mean systolic and diastolic differences, and to estimate point prevalence of predefined magnitudes of difference. Results A total of 101 participants were recruited. Mean age was 66 years (standard deviation [SD] = 13.9 years); 59% were male, and mean blood pressure was 138/79 mmHg (SD = 15/10 mmHg). Ten participants (10%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 16) had a systolic inter-arm difference >10 mmHg; 29 (29%; 95% CI = 20 to 38) had a diastolic difference ≥5 mmHg; and three (3%; 95% CI = 0 to 6) a diastolic difference ≥10 mmHg. No confounding variable was observed to account for the magnitude of an inter-arm difference. Conclusion A systolic inter-arm difference ≥10 mmHg was observed in 10% of patients with diabetes. Failure to recognise this would misclassify half of these as normotensive rather than hypertensive using the lower-reading arm. New patients with type 2 diabetes should be screened for an inter-arm blood pressure difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Nearly half of the older adult population has diabetes or a high-risk intermediate glycemic category, but we still lack trial evidence for effective type 2 diabetes prevention interventions in most of the current high-risk glycemic categories., Objective: To determine whether a group-based lifestyle intervention (with or without trained volunteers with type 2 diabetes) reduced the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes in populations with a high-risk glycemic category., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study was a parallel, 3-arm, group-based, randomized clinical trial conducted with up to 46 months of follow-up from August 2011 to January 2019 at 135 primary care practices and 8 intervention sites in the East of England. We identified 141 973 people at increased risk of type 2 diabetes, screened 12 778 (9.0%), and randomized those with a high-risk glycemic category, which was either an elevated fasting plasma glucose level alone (≥110 and <126 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555]) or an elevated glycated hemoglobin level (≥6.0% to <6.5%; nondiabetic hyperglycemia) with an elevated fasting plasma glucose level (≥100 to <110 mg/dL)., Interventions: A control arm receiving usual care (CON), a theory-based lifestyle intervention arm of 6 core and up to 15 maintenance sessions (INT), or the same intervention with support from diabetes prevention mentors, trained volunteers with type 2 diabetes (INT-DPM)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Type 2 diabetes incidence between arms., Results: In this study, 1028 participants were randomized (INT, 424 [41.2%] [166 women (39.2%)]; INT-DPM, 426 [41.4%] [147 women (34.5%)]; CON, 178 [17.3%] [70 women (%39.3)]) between January 1, 2011, and February 24, 2017. The mean (SD) age was 65.3 (10.0) years, mean (SD) body mass index 31.2 (5) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), and mean (SD) follow-up 24.7 (13.4) months. A total of 156 participants progressed to type 2 diabetes, which comprised 39 of 171 receiving CON (22.8%), 55 of 403 receiving INT (13.7%), and 62 of 414 receiving INT-DPM (15.0%). There was no significant difference between the intervention arms in the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.7; P = .51), but each intervention arm had significantly lower odds of type 2 diabetes (INT: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85; P = .01; INT-DPM: OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .033; combined: OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.87; P = .01). The effect size was similar in all glycemic, age, and social deprivation groups, and intervention costs per participant were low at $153 (£122)., Conclusions and Relevance: The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention lifestyle intervention reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes in current high-risk glycemic categories. Enhancing the intervention with DPM did not further reduce diabetes risk. These translatable results are relevant for current diabetes prevention efforts., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry Identifier: ISRCTN34805606.

Objectives: Although many health interventions are delivered in groups, it is unclear how group context can be best used to promote health-related behaviour change and what change processes are most helpful to participants. This study explored participants' experiences of attending type 2 diabetes prevention and management programme, and their perceptions of how group participation influenced changes in diet and physical activity., Design: Qualitative., Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 participants (twelve men) from nine groups in the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis in NVivo., Results: Participants benefited from individual change processes, including information provision, structuring and prioritizing health goals, action planning, self-monitoring, and receiving feedback. They also benefited from group processes, including having a common purpose, sharing experiences, making social comparisons, monitoring and accountability, and providing and receiving social support in the groups. Participants' engagement with, and benefits from, the groups were enhanced when there was a supportive group context (i.e., group cohesion, homogeneous group composition, and a positive group atmosphere). Optimal facilitation to develop an appropriate group context and initiate effective change processes necessitated good facilitator interpersonal and professional skills, credibility and empathy, and effective group facilitation methods. Participants reported developing a sense of responsibility and making behaviour changes that resulted in improvements in health outcomes and weight loss., Conclusions: This study highlights the role of individual and group processes in facilitating health-promoting behaviour change, and the importance of group context and optimal facilitation in promoting engagement with the programme. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Many health interventions, including programmes to help prevent or manage diabetes and facilitate weight loss, are delivered in groups. Such group-based behaviour-change interventions are often effective in facilitating psychological and behaviour change. There is considerable research and theory on individual change processes and techniques, but less is known about which change processes and techniques facilitate behaviour change in group settings. What does this study add? This study contributes to our understanding of how participating in group-based health programmes may enhance or impede individual behaviour change. It identified individual (intrapersonal) and group (interpersonal, facilitated through group interaction) change processes that were valued by group participants. The findings also show how these change processes may be affected by the group context. A diagram summarizes the identified themes helping to understand interactions between these key processes occurring in groups. The study offers an insight into participants' views on, and experiences of, attending a group-based diabetes prevention and management programme. Thus, it helps better understand how the intervention might have helped them (or not) and what processes may have influenced intervention outcomes. Key practical recommendations for designing and delivering group-based behaviour-change interventions are presented, which may be used to improve future group-based health interventions., (© 2019 The British Psychological Society.)

Background: The REtirement in ACTion (REACT) study is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot phase. It aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community, group-based physical activity intervention for reducing, or reversing, the progression of functional limitations in older people who are at high risk of mobility-related disability., Methods/design: A sample of 768 sedentary, community-dwelling, older people aged 65 years and over with functional limitations, but who are still ambulatory (scores between 4 and 9 out of 12 in the Short Physical Performance Battery test (SPPB)) will be randomised to receive either the REACT intervention, delivered over a period of 12 months by trained facilitators, or a minimal control intervention. The REACT study incorporates comprehensive process and economic evaluation and a nested sub-study which will test the hypothesis that the REACT intervention will slow the rate of brain atrophy and of decline in cognitive function assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Outcome data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months for the main study, with MRI sub-study data collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome analysis (SPPB score at 24 months) will be undertaken blinded to group allocation. Primary comparative analyses will be on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis with due emphasis placed on confidence intervals., Discussion: REACT represents the first large-scale, pragmatic, community-based trial in the UK to target the non-disabled but high-risk segment of the older population with an intervention to reduce mobility-related disability. A programme that can successfully engage this population in sufficient activity to improve strength, aerobic capacity, coordination and balance would have a major impact on sustaining health and independence. REACT is also the first study of its kind to conduct a full economic and comprehensive process evaluation alongside the RCT. If effective and cost-effective, the REACT intervention has strong potential to be implemented widely in the UK and elsewhere., Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN45627165 . Retrospectively registered on 13 June 2016. Trial sponsor: University of Bath. Protocol Version 1.5.

Background: Depression is associated with physical inactivity, which may mediate the relationship between depression and a range of chronic physical health conditions. However, few interventions have combined a psychological intervention for depression with behaviour change techniques, such as behavioural activation (BA), to promote increased physical activity., Methods: To determine procedural and clinical uncertainties to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT), a pilot parallel-group RCT was undertaken within two Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in South West England. We aimed to recruit 80 adults with depression and randomise them to a supported, written self-help programme based on either BA or BA plus physical activity promotion (BAcPAc). Data were collected at baseline and 4 months post-randomisation to evaluate trial retention, intervention uptake and variance in outcomes to inform a sample size calculation. Qualitative data were collected from participants and psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the trial methods and the intervention. Routine data were collected to evaluate resource use and cost., Results: Sixty people with depression were recruited, and a 73 % follow-up rate was achieved. Accelerometer physical activity data were collected for 64 % of those followed. Twenty participants (33 %) attended at least one treatment appointment. Interview data were analysed for 15 participants and 9 study PWPs. The study highlighted the challenges of conducting an RCT within existing IAPT services with high staff turnover and absences, participant scheduling issues, PWP and participant preferences for cognitive focussed treatment, and deviations from BA delivery protocols. The BAcPAc intervention was generally acceptable to patients and PWPs., Conclusions: Although recruitment procedures and data collection were challenging, participants generally engaged with the BAcPAc self-help booklets and reported willingness to increase their physical activity. A number of feasibility issues were identified, in particular the under-use of BA as a treatment for depression, the difficulty that PWPs had in adapting their existing procedures for study purposes and the instability of the IAPT PWP workforce. These problems would need to be better understood and resolved before proceeding to a full-scale RCT., Trial Registration: ISRCTN74390532 . Registered on 26 March 2013.