ABSTRACT
AIMS: Community- and school-based lifestyle interventions are an efficient method of preventing type 2 diabetes in vulnerable populations. Many participants, however, fail to complete the necessary follow-ups. We investigated factors affecting the continuous participation in follow-up evaluations during the Feel4Diabetes-study, a multilevel intervention programme implemented across Europe. METHODS: Socioeconomic, sociodemographic and clinical factors were assessed for 2702 participants within six participating countries: Bulgaria and Hungary (low-to-middle-income countries, LMIC), Belgium and Finland (high-income countries, HIC) and Greece and Spain (high-income countries under austerity measures, HICAM). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were detected with respect to sex, control group, education level, employment status, BMI and blood pressure measurements (systolic and diastolic blood pressure). Post hoc analysis revealed significant differences within socioeconomic regions. Higher levels of education were associated with significantly lower attrition in HIC (p < 0.05) and HICAM (p < 0.001), higher employment status was associated with lower attrition in HICAM (p < 0.001) and being female was associated with lower attrition in LMIC (p < 0.001). Surprisingly, the intervention group exhibited higher-than-expected attrition in HIC (p < 0.001) and HICAM (p = 0.003), and lower attrition in LMIC (p = 0.007). When tested together in the same multivariable predictive model, all sociodemographic and socioeconomic variables along with higher BMI retained their statistical significance, while systolic and diastolic blood pressure failed to remain significant. CONCLUSIONS: Key socioeconomic and sociodemographic factors along with BMI play a significant role in determining continuous participation in follow-up evaluations during school- and community-based intervention programmes.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To compare the effects of three different but isocaloric dietary patterns, high-protein/low-carbohydrate (HPD) with 20% of calories as carbohydrates, Mediterranean/low glycaemic index (MED) with 40% carbohydrates, and a reference diet (REF) with 50% carbohydrates, in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, 15 patients with T1D were assigned to the three dietary patterns for three separate weeks, with 7-day washout periods in between. Continuous glucose monitoring was applied during the intervention periods. The primary outcome was glycaemic control, as measured by the percentage of time patients spent within the euglycaemic range (TIR70-140 mg/dl ). Other key glycaemic metrics were also investigated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: TIR70-140 was not statistically different between HPD, MED and REF (p = .105). Pairwise analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between HPD and REF at the .05 level, which was not retained after applying Bonferroni correction (54.87% ± 14.11% vs. 48.33% ± 13.72%; p = .018). During the HPD period, 11 out of 15 participants spent more time within TIR70-140 compared with either the REF or MED. The HPD performed significantly better than the REF in terms of TIR70-180 (74.33% ± 12.85% vs. 67.53% ± 12.73%; p = .012), glycaemic variability (coefficient of variation: 36.18% ± 9.30% vs. 41.48% ± 8.69%; p = .016) and time spent in the hypoglycaemic range (TBR70 mg/dl ; median: 12, IQR: 16 vs. median: 14, IQR: 20; p = .007), whereas no statistically significant differences were observed between MED and HPD or REF. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with REF and MED, an HPD plan may have a positive impact on glycaemic control in patients with T1D. During the HPD, patients spent a shorter time in hypoglycaemia and exhibited lower glycaemic variability.
