Dataset Information

Is the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme Intervention Delivered as Planned? An Observational Study of Fidelity of Intervention Delivery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) has been delivered by four commercial organizations across England, to prevent people with impaired glucose tolerance developing Type 2 diabetes. Evidence reviews underpinning the NHS-DPP design specification identified 19 Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) that are the intervention "active ingredients." It is important to understand the discrepancies between BCTs specified in design and BCTs actually delivered.

Purpose

To compare observed fidelity of delivery of BCTs that were delivered to (a) the NHS-DPP design specification, and (b) the programme manuals of four provider organizations.

Methods

Audio-recordings were made of complete delivery of NHS-DPP courses at eight diverse sites (two courses per provider organization). The eight courses consisted of 111 group sessions, with 409 patients and 35 facilitators. BCT Taxonomy v1 was used to reliably code the contents of NHS-DPP design specification documents, programme manuals for each provider organization, and observed NHS-DPP group sessions.

Results

The NHS-DPP design specification indicated 19 BCTs that should be delivered, whereas only seven (37%) were delivered during the programme in all eight courses. By contrast, between 70% and 89% of BCTs specified in programme manuals were delivered. There was substantial under-delivery of BCTs that were designed to improve self-regulation of behavior, for example, those involving problem solving and self-monitoring of behavior.

Conclusions

A lack of fidelity in delivery to the underlying evidence base was apparent, due to poor translation of design specification to programme manuals. By contrast, the fidelity of delivery to the programme manuals was relatively good. Future commissioning should focus on ensuring the evidence base is more accurately translated into the programme manual contents.

SUBMITTER: French DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557367 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a nine-month, group-based behavioural intervention for adults in England at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Four independent providers were commissioned to deliver versions of the NHS-DPP, in line with NHS England specifications. This observational study maps NHS-DPP delivery in routine practice against the NHS specification, and compares service delivery with observed patient experiences. METHODS:Researchers observed service delivery across eight complete NHS-DPP courses (118 sessions, median 14 sessions per course), consenting 455 participants (36 staff, 398 patients, 21 accompanying persons). Key features of NHS-DPP delivery were described using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework. Researchers wrote detailed field notes during each session, including observations of patient experience. Field notes were content analysed; instances of positive and negative experiences were labelled and grouped into categories. Researchers used a novel method of comparing observed patient experiences to variations in programme delivery. RESULTS:Delivery broadly followed NHS England's specification and the plans set out by providers. Deviations included the scheduling and larger group sizes in some sessions. There was variation in the type and format of activities delivered by providers. Positive patient experiences included engagement, satisfaction with the programme, good within-group relationships and reported behavioural changes. Negative experiences included poor scheduling, large groups, and dissatisfaction with the venue. Where more interactive and visual activities were delivered in smaller groups of 10-15 people with good rapport, there were generally more instances of positive patient experiences, and where there were structural issues such as problems with the scheduling of sessions, poor venues and inadequate resources, there tended to be more negative patient experiences. CONCLUSIONS:Addressing issues that we have identified as being linked to negative experiences with the NHS-DPP could increase uptake, reduce patient drop-out and increase the overall effectiveness of the programme. In particular, modifying structural aspects of the NHS-DPP (e.g. reliable session scheduling, reducing group sizes, enough session resources) and increasing interaction appear particularly promising for improving these outcomes.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation. DESIGN:We reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures. SETTING:Seven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England. INTERVENTIONS:Intensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9?months, delivered face to face to groups of 15-20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks. PARTICIPANTS:Participants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group. FINDINGS:The NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance. CONCLUSIONS:The NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Technology-based lifestyle behavioral interventions (i.e., telehealth, mHealth, eHealth, and/or digital health) are becoming an alternative standard of care and possess several advantages over traditional clinical settings such as convenience, cost, and the ability to tailor plans and feedback to a participant's individual needs. These technology-based interventions also present unique challenges to intervention fidelity due to extra elements involved in executing the intervention. Intervention fidelity monitoring is essential to ensure internal and external validity, yet the development and utilization of fidelity protocols is under-reported in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to describe the intervention fidelity protocol for the 24-START study, a behavior change intervention delivered through telephone and internet. This paper also discusses the results of a pilot audit conducted to determine the feasibility of monitoring adherence to the fidelity protocol. METHODS:The 24-START fidelity protocol was developed in accordance with the five fidelity areas outlined by the NIH Behavior Change Consortium (NIH BCC) including: design of study, provider training, delivery of treatment, receipt of treatment, and enactment of treatment. The fidelity strategies provided by the NIH BCC in each area were tailored to fit the specific design of the 24-START study. Twenty-six total fidelity strategies were developed in accordance with the five areas and a corresponding fidelity monitoring plan was created. Because these strategies are only beneficial if implemented, the fidelity monitoring plan was developed to ensure the fidelity strategies are consistently implemented over the course of the intervention. RESULTS:A pilot audit of nine participant files was conducted to test the feasibility of the fidelity protocol developed. Out of the nine participant files reviewed, 89% of scheduled phone calls between a telehealth coach and participant were successfully completed. Of the completed calls, telehealth coaches delivered the intervention as intended 85.3% of the time, and 74% of planned secondary contacts made through the internet were delivered successfully. Additionally, between treatment group dosing was found to be equal. Several weak areas in the fidelity protocol were identified for improvement. The results were satisfactory and the audit was deemed feasible for ongoing use. CONCLUSIONS:The NIH BCC provides a valuable framework for telehealth interventions to develop fidelity protocols ultimately contributing to improved internal and external validity, better translation of results, increased transparency, and increased opportunities for replication within the field. The 24-START pilot audit found the fidelity protocol efficacious and feasible while also identifying areas of weakness in need of revision. The refined protocol will continue to be utilized throughout the data collection phase. Future telehealth interventions should develop and disclose fidelity protocols to improve the overall quality and standard of telehealth interventions.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevention of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a major concern for health services around the world. The English NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) offers a group face-to-face behaviour change intervention, based around exercise and diet, to adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH), referred from primary care. Previous analysis of the first 100,000 referrals revealed just over half of those referred to the NHS-DPP took up a place. This study aimed to identify the demographic, health and psychosocial factors associated with NHS-DPP uptake to help inform the development of interventions to improve uptake and address inequities between population groups.MethodsDrawing on the Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization we developed a survey questionnaire to collect data on a wide range of demographic, health and psychosocial factors that might influence uptake of the NHS-DPP. We distributed this questionnaire to a cross-sectional random sample of 597 patients referred to the NHS-DPP across 17 general practices, chosen for variation. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with NHS-DPP uptake.Results325 out of 597 questionnaires were completed (54%). Only a third of responders took up the offer of a place. The best performing model for uptake (AUC = 0.78) consisted of four factors: older age; beliefs concerning personal vulnerability to T2DM; self-efficacy for reducing T2DM risk; and the efficacy of the NHS-DPP. After accounting for these, demographic and health-related factors played only a minor role.ConclusionUnlike fixed demographic characteristics, psychosocial perceptions may be amenable to change. NHS-DPP uptake rates may be improved by targeting the beliefs of patients about their risk of developing T2DM, their ability to carry out and sustain behaviours to reduce this risk, and the efficacy of the NHS-DPP in providing the necessary understanding and skills required. The recently introduced digital version of the NHS DPP could help address the even lower uptake amongst younger adults. Such changes could facilitate proportional access from across different demographic strata.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate potential return on investment of the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) in England and estimate which population subgroups are likely to benefit most in terms of cost-effectiveness, cost-savings and health benefits.DesignEconomic analysis using the School for Public Health Research Diabetes Prevention Model.SettingEngland 2015-2016.PopulationAdults aged ≥16 with high risk of type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 6%-6.4%). Population subgroups defined by age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, baseline body mass index, baseline HbA1c and working status.InterventionsThe proposed NHS DPP: an intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on dietary advice, physical activity and weight loss. Comparator: no diabetes prevention intervention.Main outcome measuresIncremental costs, savings and return on investment, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), diabetes cases, cardiovascular cases and net monetary benefit from an NHS perspective.ResultsIntervention costs will be recouped through NHS savings within 12 years, with net NHS saving of £1.28 over 20 years for each £1 invested. Per 100 000 DPP interventions given, 3552 QALYs are gained. The DPP is most cost-effective and cost-saving in obese individuals, those with baseline HbA1c 6.2%-6.4% and those aged 40-74. QALY gains are lower in minority ethnic and low socioeconomic status subgroups. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that there is 97% probability that the DPP will be cost-effective within 20 years. NHS savings are highly sensitive to intervention cost, effectiveness and duration of effect.ConclusionsThe DPP is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving under current assumptions. Prioritising obese individuals could create the most value for money and obtain the greatest health benefits per individual targeted. Low socioeconomic status or ethnic minority groups may gain fewer QALYs per intervention, so targeting strategies should ensure the DPP does not contribute to widening health inequalities. Further evidence is needed around the differential responsiveness of population subgroups to the DPP.