Search

Introduction: Although behavioural interventions have been found to help control type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to understand how the delivery context can influence implementation and outcomes. The NHS committed to testing a low‐calorie diet (LCD) programme designed to support people living with excess weight and T2D to lose weight and improve diabetes outcomes. Understanding what influenced implementation during the programme pilot is important in optimising rollout. This study explored the transferability of the NHS LCD Programme prior to wider adoption. Methods: Twenty‐five interviews were undertaken with stakeholders involved in implementing the LCD programme in pilot sites (health service leads, referring health professionals and programme deliverers). Interviews with programme participants (people living with T2D) were undertaken within a larger programme of work, exploring what worked, for whom and why, which is reported separately. The conceptual Population–Intervention–Environment–Transfer Model of Transferability (PIET‐T) guided study design and data collection. Constructs of the model were also used as a deductive coding frame during data analysis. Key themes were identified which informed recommendations to optimise programme transfer. Results: Population: Referral strategies in some areas lacked consideration of population characteristics. Many believed that offering a choice of delivery model would promote acceptability and accessibility of the eligible population. Intervention: Overall, stakeholders had confidence in the LCD programme due to the robust evidence base along with anecdotal evidence, but some felt the complex referral process hindered engagement from GP practices. Environment: Stakeholders described barriers to accessing the programme, including language and learning difficulties. Transferability: Multidisciplinary working and effective communication supported successful implementation. Conclusion: Referral strategies to reach underrepresented groups should be considered during programme transfer, along with timely data from service providers on access and programme benefits. A choice of delivery models may optimise uptake. Knowledge sharing between sites on good working practices is encouraged, including increasing engagement with key stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: People with type 2 diabetes can enter remission but may relapse or develop legacy complications. This analysis assesses whether people with remission from type 2 diabetes continue receiving annual care processes recommended in national guidelines and the potential impacts of formal recognition of remission. Methods: People with type 2 diabetes with and without formal recognition (diagnostic code) of remission, and with and without evidence of remission (HbA1c < 48 mmol/mol without prescription for glucose‐lowering drugs in preceding 26 weeks), included in the 2018/19 National Diabetes Audit (NDA) for England and Wales were followed up to identify care processes received between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2020. Results: Of the 2,822,145 people with type 2 diabetes in the cohort, 16,460 (0.58%) were coded with remission in the 2018/19 NDA. After adjustment for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity, people coded with remission were less likely to receive each care process than those without such coding irrespective of HbA1c measurements (relative risk (RR) of receiving all 8 care processes 0.70 (95% CI 0.69–0.72)). For the 339,235 people with evidence of remission, irrespective of diagnostic coding compared to those without such evidence, the RR for receiving all 8 care processes was 0.94 (95% CI 0.93–0.94). Conclusions: People coded with remission of type 2 diabetes were less likely to receive diabetes care processes than those without such coding. People with evidence of remission had only a slightly reduced likelihood of receiving care processes. Formal recognition of remission may affect the provision or uptake of care processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]