Intervention fidelity assessment: A sub-study of the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS).

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that lifestyle modification can delay or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals. The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS) was a parallel, three-arm, randomized controlled trial with up to 46 months follow-up that tested a group-delivered, theory-based lifestyle intervention to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk groups. The current study aimed to evaluate if the NDPS intervention was delivered to an acceptable standard and if any part(s) of the delivery required improvement. METHODS: A sub-sample of 30, 25 for inter-rater reliability and audio-recordings of the NDPS intervention education sessions were assessed independently by two reviewers (CT, TW) using a 12-item checklist. Each item was scored on a 0-5 scale, with a score of 3 being defined as 'adequate delivery'. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess changes in intervention fidelity as the facilitators gained experience. RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement was acceptable (86%). A mean score of 3.47 (SD = .38) was achieved across all items of the fidelity checklist and across all intervention facilitators (n = 6). There was an apparent trend for intervention fidelity scores to decrease with experience; however, this trend was non-significant (p > .05) across all domains in this small sample. CONCLUSION: The NDPS was delivered to an acceptable standard by all Diabetes Prevention Facilitators. Further research is needed to better understand how the intervention's delivery characteristics can be optimized and how they might vary over time.

Quantity and specificity of action-plans as predictors of weight loss: analysis of data from the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS).

OBJECTIVE: Investigate associations between quantity, content and specificity of action-plans and weight loss in a diabetes prevention study. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study nested within a randomised controlled trial. Participants completed action-planning worksheets during intervention sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Action-plans were coded in terms of: number of plans set, their content, and specificity. Multivariate regression analyses assessed associations with weight loss at four-months. RESULTS: 890 planning-worksheets from 106 participants were analysed. Participants wrote a mean of 2.12 (SD = 1.20) action-plans per worksheet, using a mean of 2.20 (SD = 0.68) specificity components per action-plan. Quantity of action-plans per worksheet decreased over time (r = -0.137, p < 0.001) and increased quantity was associated with reduced specificity [r = -.215, p < 0.001]. Walking (34.9% of action-plans) and reducing high fat/sugar snacks (26.1%) were the most commonly planned lifestyle actions. In multivariate modelling, increased quantity of action-plans was associated with greater weight loss (R2 = 0.135, Unstandardised Beta = 0.144, p = 0.002). Specificity was not significantly associated with weight-loss (p = 0.096). CONCLUSION: Producing more action-plans was associated with greater weight loss. Further research should directly compare more versus less specific action-plans and explore ways to sustain engagement in action-planning. Our findings imply that participants should freely set numerous action-plans, rather than being encouraged to focus on specificity.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2022.2055026 .

Trained Volunteers With Type 2 Diabetes Experience Significant Health Benefits When Providing Peer Support.

Trained lay volunteers may have value in supporting lifestyle change programs in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but the potential health benefits (or harms) experienced by these lay volunteers have not been well described. This is important, as this is an appealing model in terms of workforce planning. The aim of the prespecified quantitative study reported here, was to examine the possible health benefits or harms experienced by these trained lay volunteers with type 2 diabetes. In a large type 2 diabetes prevention program, we recruited and trained 104 lay volunteers with type 2 diabetes themselves, to act as diabetes prevention mentors and codeliver the lifestyle intervention. Mentors made motivational telephone calls to 461 participants randomized to one of the trial arms to encourage lifestyle changes. Weight, diet, physical activity, well-being, quality of life, diabetes-specific self-efficacy, and glycaemic control were measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Average mentor age was 62.0 years, 57 (54.8%) were male, 92 (88.5%) were overweight or obese (BMI>30 kg/m2). At 12 months, mentor dietary behaviors (fat and fiber intake) improved significantly, sedentary time spent fell significantly, and diabetes specific self-efficacy scores significantly increased. These significant improvements, with no evidence of harms, suggest lay volunteers with type 2 diabetes codelivering a lifestyle intervention, may themselves experience health benefits from volunteering.

Recruitment, retention, and training of people with type 2 diabetes as diabetes prevention mentors (DPM) to support a healthcare professional-delivered diabetes prevention program: the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS).

Objective: Intensive lifestyle interventions reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in populations at highest risk, but staffing levels are usually unable to meet the challenge of delivering effective prevention strategies to a very large at-risk population. Training volunteers with existing type 2 diabetes to support healthcare professionals deliver lifestyle interventions is an attractive option. Methods: We identified 141 973 people at highest risk of diabetes in the East of England, screened 12 778, and randomized 1764 into a suite of type 2 diabetes prevention and screen detected type 2 diabetes management trials. A key element of the program tested the value of volunteers with type 2 diabetes, trained to act as diabetes prevention mentors (DPM) when added to an intervention arm delivered by healthcare professionals trained to support participant lifestyle change. Results: We invited 9951 people with type 2 diabetes to become DPM and 427 responded (4.3%). Of these, 356 (83.3%) were interviewed by phone, and of these 131 (36.8%) were interviewed in person. We then appointed 104 of these 131 interviewed applicants (79%) to the role (mean age 62 years, 55% (n=57) male). All DPMs volunteered for a total of 2895 months, and made 6879 telephone calls to 461 randomized participants. Seventy-six (73%) DPMs volunteered for at least 6 months and 66 (73%) for at least 1 year. Discussion: Individuals with type 2 diabetes can be recruited, trained and retained as DPM in large numbers to support a group-based diabetes prevention program delivered by healthcare professionals. This volunteer model is low cost, and accesses the large type 2 diabetes population that shares a lifestyle experience with the target population. This is an attractive model for supporting diabetes prevention efforts.