A lifestyle intervention to reduce Type 2 diabetes risk in Dutch primary care: 2.5-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To determine the effectiveness of a 2.5-year lifestyle intervention for Type 2 diabetes prevention in Dutch general practice compared with usual care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of 925 individuals at high risk for Type 2 diabetes (FINDRISC-score ≥ 13) in 14 general practices in the Netherlands. Intervention consisted of lifestyle counselling from the nurse practitioner and the general practitioner. Usual care consisted of oral and written information at the start of the study. Study groups were compared over 2.5 years regarding changes in clinical and lifestyle measures. RESULTS: Both groups showed modest changes in body weight, glucose concentrations, physical activity and dietary intake [weight: intervention group, -0.8 (5.1) kg, usual care group, -0.4 (4.7) kg, (P=0.69); fasting plasma glucose: intervention group, -0.17 (0.4) mmol/l, usual care group, -0.10 (0.5) mmol/l, (P=0.10)]. Differences between groups were significant only for total physical activity and fibre intake. In the intervention group, self-efficacy was significantly higher in individuals successful at losing weight compared with unsuccessful individuals. No significant differences in participant weight loss were found between general practitioners and nurse practitioners with different levels of motivation or self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes risk factors could significantly be reduced by lifestyle counselling in Dutch primary care. However, intervention effects above the effects attributable to usual care were modest. Higher participant self-efficacy seemed to facilitate weight loss. Lack of motivation or self-efficacy of professionals did not negatively influence participant guidance.

An active strategy to identify individuals eligible for type 2 diabetes prevention by lifestyle intervention in Dutch primary care: the APHRODITE study.

BACKGROUND: Several trials have shown the potential of lifestyle intervention programmes for prevention of type 2 diabetes. The effectiveness of implementation of these programmes into daily practice is now being studied in several countries. The 'Active Prevention in High Risk individuals of Diabetes Type 2 in Eindhoven' (APHRODITE) study investigates whether type 2 diabetes prevention by lifestyle intervention is effective in Dutch primary care. In this article we describe the process of recruiting the study participants. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reach of an active strategy to recruit participants for a programme on type 2 diabetes prevention by lifestyle intervention in Dutch primary care. METHODS: A diabetes risk questionnaire was sent to general practice patients aged 40-70 years. Individuals with a risk score above threshold were invited for an admission interview with the GP and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). All individuals with non-diabetic glucose levels were asked to participate in the intervention study. RESULTS: In total, 8752 (54.6%) of the individuals returned the questionnaire in time. Of all high-risk individuals (n = 1533), 73.1% contacted their practice to schedule a consultation with the GP. Response rates varied significantly among practices. CONCLUSIONS: Using invitational letters, a substantial amount of individuals could be motivated to participate in a programme on type 2 diabetes prevention by lifestyle intervention in Dutch primary care. Further research is needed on what kind of strategy would be most effective and efficient to screen for individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes in primary care.