The cost of intervention per participant delivered by dietitians was lower than interventions delivered by non-dietitians , although few studies reported costs .
Lifestyle interventions are effective in reducing body weight and glucose-related outcomes .
Dietitian-delivered interventions , compared with those delivered by other personnel , achieved greater weight reduction .
No consistent trend was identified across different delivery channels
BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes is a significant public health concern .
With the completion of the Diabetes Prevention Program , there has been a proliferation of studies attempting to translate this evidence base into practice .
However , the cost , effectiveness , and cost-effectiveness of these adapted interventions is unknown .
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a comprehensive meta- analysis to synthesize the effectiveness , cost , and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle diabetes prevention interventions and compare effects by intervention delivery agent ( dietitian vs non-dietitian ) and channel ( in-person vs technology-delivered ) .
Lowering dietary glycaemic index through nutrition education among Malaysian women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus.
INTRODUCTION Gestational diabetes mellitus ( GDM ) increases risks for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases . Low glycaemic index ( GI ) diets improve cardio-metabolic outcomes in insulin-resistant individuals . We examined the feasibility of lowering GI through GI-based-education among Asian post-GDM women . METHODS A 3-month investigation was carried out on 60 Malaysian women with a mean age of 31.0 + /- 4.5 years and a history of GDM . Subjects were r and omised into two groups : LGIE and CHDR . The CHDR group received conventional healthy dietary recommendations only . The LGIE group received GI based-education in addition to conventional healthy dietary recommendations . At baseline and after 3-months , dietary intake of energy and macronutrient intakes including GI diet and glycaemic load was assessed using 3-day food records .  Diabetes-Diet and GI-concept scores and physical activity levels were assessed using a question naire . Adherence to dietary instructions was measured at the end of 3 months . RESULTS At the end of 3 months , the LGIE group had significant reductions in energy intake ( 241.7 + /- 522.4Kcal , P = 0.037 , ES=0.463 ) , total carbohydrate ( 48.7 + /- 83.5 g , P = 0.010 , ES = 0.583 ) , GI ( 3.9 + /- 7.1 , P = 0.017 , ES = 0.549 ) and GL ( 39.0 + /- 55.3 , P = 0.003 , ES = 0.705 ) and significant increases in protein ( 3.7 + /- 5.4 g , 0.003 , ES = 0.685 ) and diet fibre ( 4.6 + /- 7.3 g , P = 0.06 ) . The CHDR group had a significant reduction in fat only ( 5.7 + /- 9.4 g , P = 0.006 , ES = 0.606 ) . There was a 30 % increase in GI-concept scores in the LGIE group ( p < 0.001 ) . Changes in GI-concept scores correlated significantly to the reduction in dietary GI ( r = -0.642 , P = 0.045 ) . Dietary adherence was comparable in both groups . CONCLUSION GI-education improves GI-concept knowledge and helps lower dietary glycaemic index among women with a history of GDM
The cost of intervention per participant delivered by dietitians was lower than interventions delivered by non-dietitians , although few studies reported costs .
Lifestyle interventions are effective in reducing body weight and glucose-related outcomes .
Dietitian-delivered interventions , compared with those delivered by other personnel , achieved greater weight reduction .
No consistent trend was identified across different delivery channels
BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes is a significant public health concern .
With the completion of the Diabetes Prevention Program , there has been a proliferation of studies attempting to translate this evidence base into practice .
However , the cost , effectiveness , and cost-effectiveness of these adapted interventions is unknown .
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a comprehensive meta- analysis to synthesize the effectiveness , cost , and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle diabetes prevention interventions and compare effects by intervention delivery agent ( dietitian vs non-dietitian ) and channel ( in-person vs technology-delivered ) .