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 ) .
A Feasibility Study to Develop a Diabetes Prevention Program for Young Adults With Prediabetes by Using Digital Platforms and a Handheld Device
Purpose The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of an age-specific diabetes prevention program in young adults with prediabetes . Methods A one-group pretest-posttest design was used . The inclusion criteria were age 18 to 29 years and the presence of prediabetes ( either impaired fasting glucose of 100 - 125 mg/dL [ 5.55 - 6.94 mmol/L ] or A1C of 5.7%-6.4 % ) . Fifteen participants were enrolled in the study . A technology-based lifestyle coaching program focused on diet and physical activity and incorporating a h and held device and digital platforms was developed and tested . Psychosocial factors ( health literacy , illness perception , self-efficacy , therapeutic efficacy ) based on social cognitive theory , changes in diet and physical activity , and cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed at baseline and week 12 after the intervention . A paired- sample s t test was performed to examine changes between baseline and postintervention on each psychosocial and physical variable . Results Participants ’ ( n = 13 completers ) mean age was 24.4 ± 2.2 years , 23.1 % were male , and 53.8 % were African American . Overall , the participants were satisfied with the intervention ( mean score , 4.15 on a 5-point , Likert-type scale ) . Between pre- and posttesting , mean body mass index and mean A1C decreased from 41.0 ± 7.3 kg/m2 and 6.0 ± 0.5 % to 40.1 ± 7.0 kg/m2 and 5.6 ± 0.5 % , respectively , whereas mean fasting glucose did not significantly change ( from 92.6 ± 11 to 97.6 ± 14.3 mg/dL [ 5.14 ± 0.61 to 5.42 ± 0.79 mmol/L ] ) . Conclusions The intervention result ed in reduced A1C and a trend toward decreased body mass index in obese sedentary young adults with prediabetes after 12 weeks . Further study through a r and omized clinical trial with a longer intervention period is warranted
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 ) .