Dataset Information

Determinants of lifestyle behavior change to prevent type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although there are many effective lifestyle interventions for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) prevention, insight into effective intervention pathways, especially of long-term interventions, is often lacking. This study aims to provide insight into the effective intervention pathways of the SLIMMER diabetes prevention intervention using mediation analyses.

Methods

In total, 240 participants at increased risk of T2DM were included in the analyses over 18 months. The intervention was a combined lifestyle intervention with a dietary and a physical activity (PA) component. The primary and secondary outcomes were change in fasting insulin (pmol/L) and change in body weight (kg) after 18 months, respectively. Firstly, in a multiple mediator model, we investigated whether significant changes in these outcomes were mediated by changes in dietary and PA behavior. Secondly, in multiple single mediator models, we investigated whether changes in dietary and PA behavior were mediated by changes in behavioral determinants and the participants' psychological profile. The mediation analyses used linear regression models, where significance of indirect effects was calculated with bootstrapping.

Results

The effect of the intervention on decreased fasting insulin was 40% mediated by change in dietary and PA behavior, where dietary behavior was an independent mediator of the association (34%). The effect of the intervention on decreased body weight was 20% mediated by change in dietary and PA behavior, where PA behavior was an independent mediator (17%). The intervention significantly changed intake of fruit, fat from bread spread, and fiber from bread. Change in fruit intake was mediated by change in action control (combination of consciousness, self-control, and effort), motivation, self-efficacy, intention, and skills. Change in fat intake was mediated by change in action control and psychological profile. No mediators could be identified for change in fiber intake. The change in PA behavior was mediated by change in action control, motivation, and psychological profile.

Conclusion

The effect of the SLIMMER intervention on fasting insulin and body weight was mediated by changes in dietary and PA behavior, in distinct ways. These results indicate that changing dietary as well as PA behavior is important in T2DM prevention.

SUBMITTER: den Braver NR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5468963 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives To investigate the association between increase in physical activity and changes in cardiometabolic risk factors during a lifestyle intervention programme in routine clinical settings. Design Prospective follow-up. Setting 400 primary healthcare centres and occupational healthcare outpatient clinics in Finland. Participants Individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes identified in the implementation project of the national diabetes prevention programme (FIN-D2D) and participating in baseline and 1-year follow-up visits. Final study group comprised the 1871 non-diabetic participants who responded at follow-up visit to a question on stability versus increase of physical activity. Interventions Lifestyle intervention. Primary outcome measures Cardiometabolic risk factors (body composition, blood pressure and those measured from fasting venous blood samples) measured at baseline and follow-up visits. Results Of the participants, 310 (16.6% of all responders) reported at follow-up having clearly increased their physical activity during the past year, while 1380 (73.8%) had been unable to increase their physical activity. Those who increased their activity decreased their weight by 3.6 kg (95% CI 2.9 to 4.3, age and sex adjusted, p<0.001) and waist circumference by 3.6 cm (95% CI 2.9 to 4.3, p<0.001) more than those who did not increase their activity. Similarly, those who increased their physical activity had greater reductions in total cholesterol (group difference in reduction 0.17 mmol/l, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28, p=0.002), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.16 mmol/l, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.26, p=0.001), low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein ratio (0.17, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.25, p<0.001) as well as fasting glucose (0.09 mmol/l, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.15, p=0.004) and 2 h glucose levels (0.36 mmol/l, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55, p=0.023) than those who did not increase their physical activity. Conclusion Increasing physical activity seems to be an important feature of cardiometabolic risk reduction among individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes participating in preventive interventions in routine clinical settings.

Project description:BackgroundIntensive lifestyle modifications have proved effective in preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), yet the efficiency and effectiveness of these modifications need to be improved. Emerging social media interventions are considered useful in promoting these lifestyles; nevertheless, few studies have investigated the effectiveness of combining them with behavior theory.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the effectiveness of a 6-month mobile-based intervention (DHealthBar, a WeChat applet) combined with behavioral theory compared with a printed intervention in improving dietary behaviors, physical activity, and intention to change these behaviors among populations at high risk for T2DM.MethodsParticipants aged 23 to 67 years were recruited offline in Beijing, China, and were randomized into the intervention group or the control group, which received educational content via DHealthBar or a printed handbook, respectively. Educational materials were culturally tailored recommendations on improving dietary behaviors, physical activity, and intention to change based on the transtheoretical model. Participants in the intervention arm received push notifications twice per week on WeChat and had access to the educational content for the 6-month study period. Participants in the control arm received the same intervention content through printed materials. The outcomes of participants' behavior change, intention to change behavior, and anthropometric characteristics were collected via online measuring tools at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.ResultsIn this study, 79 enrolled individuals completed baseline information collection (control: n=38 vs intervention: n=41), and 96% (76/79) completed the 6-month follow-up visit. Attrition rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (χ21=0.0, P=.61). Baseline equivalence was found. Participants in both groups reported a statistically significant decrease in energy intake at the 2 follow-up assessments compared with baseline (3 months, control: exp[β]=0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.92 vs intervention: exp[β]=0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85; 6 months, control: exp[β]=0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.96 vs intervention: exp[β]=0.57, 95% CI 0.51-0.64). At 6 months, a significantly larger decrease was observed in the intervention group in energy, fat, and carbohydrate intake, accompanied with a significantly larger increase in moderate-intensity physical activity compared with the control group (energy: exp[β]=0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.77; fat: exp[β]=0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.95; carbohydrates: exp[β]=0.83, 95% CI 0.66-1.03; moderate-intensity physical activity: exp[β]=2.05, 95% CI 1.23-3.44). After 6 months of the intervention, participants in the intervention group were more likely to be at higher stages of dietary behaviors (exp[β]=26.80, 95% CI 3.51-204.91) and physical activity (exp[β]=15.60, 95% CI 2.67-91.04) than the control group.ConclusionsDHealthBar was initially effective in improving dietary behavior, physical activity, and intention to change these behaviors among populations who were at high risk of developing T2DM, with significant differences in the changes of outcomes over the 6-month intervention period.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000032323; https://tinyurl.com/y4h8q4uf.

Project description:The efficacy of diabetes genetic risk testing to motivate behavior change for diabetes prevention is currently unknown.This paper presents key issues in the design and implementation of one of the first randomized trials (The Genetic Counseling/Lifestyle Change (GC/LC) Study for Diabetes Prevention) to test whether knowledge of diabetes genetic risk can motivate patients to adopt healthier behaviors.Because individuals may react differently to receiving 'higher' vs 'lower' genetic risk results, we designed a 3-arm parallel group study to separately test the hypotheses that: (1) patients receiving 'higher' diabetes genetic risk results will increase healthy behaviors compared to untested controls, and (2) patients receiving 'lower' diabetes genetic risk results will decrease healthy behaviors compared to untested controls. In this paper we describe several challenges to implementing this study, including: (1) the application of a novel diabetes risk score derived from genetic epidemiology studies to a clinical population, (2) the use of the principle of Mendelian randomization to efficiently exclude 'average' diabetes genetic risk patients from the intervention, and (3) the development of a diabetes genetic risk counseling intervention that maintained the ethical need to motivate behavior change in both 'higher' and 'lower' diabetes genetic risk result recipients.Diabetes genetic risk scores were developed by aggregating the results of 36 diabetes-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. Relative risk for type 2 diabetes was calculated using Framingham Offspring Study outcomes, grouped by quartiles into 'higher', 'average' (middle two quartiles) and 'lower' genetic risk. From these relative risks, revised absolute risks were estimated using the overall absolute risk for the study group. For study efficiency, we excluded all patients receiving 'average' diabetes risk results from the subsequent intervention. This post-randomization allocation strategy was justified because genotype represents a random allocation of parental alleles ('Mendelian randomization'). Finally, because it would be unethical to discourage participants to participate in diabetes prevention behaviors, we designed our two diabetes genetic risk counseling interventions (for 'higher' and 'lower' result recipients) so that both groups would be motivated despite receiving opposing results.For this initial assessment of the clinical implementation of genetic risk testing we assessed intermediate outcomes of attendance at a 12-week diabetes prevention course and changes in self-reported motivation. If effective, longer term studies with larger sample sizes will be needed to assess whether knowledge of diabetes genetic risk can help patients prevent diabetes.We designed a randomized clinical trial designed to explore the motivational impact of disclosing both higher than average and lower than average genetic risk for type 2 diabetes. This design allowed exploration of both increased risk and false reassurance, and has implications for future studies in translational genomics.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lifestyle change interventions (LCI) for prevention of type 2 diabetes are covered by Medicare, but rarely by US Medicaid programs that constitute the largest public payer system in the USA. We estimate the long-term health and economic implications of implementing LCIs in state Medicaid programs. METHODS:We compared LCIs modeled after the intervention of the Diabetes Prevention Program versus routine care advice using a decision analytic simulation model and best available data from representative surveys, cohort studies, Medicaid claims data, and the published literature. Target population were non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 years at high risk for type 2 diabetes (BMI ?25 kg/m2 and HbA1c ? 5.7% or fasting plasma glucose ? 110 mg/dl) from eight study states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma) that represent around 50% of the US Medicaid population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured in cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and population cost and health impact were modeled from a healthcare system perspective and a narrow Medicaid perspective. RESULTS:In the eight selected study states, 1.9 million or 18% of non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries would belong to the eligible high-risk target population - 66% of them Hispanics or non-Hispanic black. In the base-case analysis, the aggregated 5- and 10-year ICERs are US$226 k/QALY and US$34 k/QALY; over 25 years, the intervention dominates routine care. The 5-, 10-, and 25-year probabilities that the ICERs are below US$50 k (US$100 k)/QALY are 6% (15%), 59% (82%) and 96% (100%). From a healthcare system perspective, initial program investments of US$800 per person would be offset after 13 years and translate to US$548 of savings after 25 years. With a 20% LCI uptake in eligible beneficiaries, this would translate to upfront costs of US$300 million, prevent 260 thousand years of diabetes and save US$205 million over a 25-year time horizon. Cost savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller. Minorities and low-income groups would over-proportionally benefit from LCIs in Medicaid, but the impact on population health and health equity would be marginal. CONCLUSIONS:In the long-term, investments in LCIs for Medicaid beneficiaries are likely to improve health and to decrease healthcare expenditures. However, population health and health equity impact would be low and healthcare expenditure savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller than from a healthcare system perspective.