Cited by 156Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and EducationHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Reach and use of diabetes prevention services in the United States, 2016-2017.

Open access
Ali, Mohammed K., McKeever Bullard, Kai, Imperatore, Giuseppina, Benoit, Stephen R., Rolka, Deborah B., Albright, Ann L., Gregg, Edward W.·2019·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Coordinated efforts by national organizations in the United States to implement evidence-based lifestyle modification programs are under way to reduce type 2 diabetes (hereinafter referred to as diabetes) and cardiovascular risks. Objective: To provide a status report on the reach and use of diabetes prevention services nationally. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative, population-based cross-sectional analysis of 2016 and 2017 National Health Interview Survey data was conducted from August 3, 2017, through November 15, 2018. Nonpregnant, noninstitutionalized, civilian respondents 18 years or older at high risk for diabetes, defined as those with no self-reported diabetes diagnosis but with diagnosed prediabetes or an elevated American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk score (>5), were included in the analysis. Analyses were conducted for adults with (and in sensitivity analyses, for those without) elevated body mass index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute numbers and proportions of adults at high risk with elevated body mass index receiving advice about diet, physical activity guidance, referral to weight loss programs, referral to diabetes prevention programs, or any of these, and those affirming engagement in each (or any) activity in the past year were estimated. To identify where gaps exist, a prevention continuum diagram plotted existing vs desired goal achievement. Variation in risk-reducing activities by age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, insurance status, history of gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or body mass index was also examined. Results: This analysis included 50 912 respondents (representing 223.0 million adults nationally) 18 years or older (mean [SE] age, 46.1 [0.2] years; 48.1% [0.3%] male) with complete data and no self-reported diabetes diagnosis by their health care professional. Of the represented population, 36.0% (80.0 million) had either a physician diagnosis of prediabetes (17.9 million), an elevated ADA risk score (73.3 million), or both (11.3 million). Among those with diagnosed prediabetes, 73.5% (95% CI, 71.6%-75.3%) reported receiving advice and/or referrals for diabetes risk reduction from their health care professional, and, of those, 35.0% (95% CI, 30.5%-39.8%) to 75.8% (95% CI, 73.2%-78.3%) reported engaging in the respective activity or program in the past year. Half of adults with elevated ADA risk scores but no diagnosed prediabetes (50.6%; 95% CI, 49.5%-51.8%) reported receiving risk-reduction advice and/or referral, of whom 33.5% (95% CI, 30.1%-37.0%) to 75.2% (95% CI, 73.4%-76.9%) reported engaging in activities and/or programs. Participation in diabetes prevention programs was exceedingly low. Advice from a health care professional, age range from 45 to 64 years, higher educational attainment, health insurance status, gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity were associated with higher engagement in risk-reducing activities and/or programs. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults at high risk for diabetes, major gaps in receiving advice and/or referrals and engaging in diabetes risk-reduction activities and/or programs were noted. These results suggest that risk perception, health care professional referral and communication, and insurance coverage may be key levers to increase risk-reducing behaviors in US adults. These findings provide a benchmark from which to monitor future program availability and coverage, identification of prediabetes, and referral to and retention in programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3160

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Travel, scheduling conflicts, and limited cohort availability constrain participation in in-person DPPs.

    “Travel (for in-person DPPs), scheduling conflicts, and limited cohort availability constrain participation.8”

    From An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2025) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Discussion (page not provided) says competing priorities and the time required to participate may be barriers, and suggests that expanding program supply may help address low engagement. It does not identify travel, scheduling conflicts, or limited cohort availability as specific barriers, and says the study cannot assertively explain low engagement. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among U.S. adults at high risk for diabetes, only half reported receiving any diabetes risk-reduction advice or referral.

    “Despite these large-scale investments, evidence suggests that among U.S. adults at high risk for diabetes, only half reported receiving any diabetes risk-reduction advice or referral”

    From Effects of a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program: An RCT (2022) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Results (page not specified) report that 50.6% of adults with elevated BMI and high ADA risk scores but no prediabetes diagnosis received advice or a referral. The claim extends that figure to all U.S. adults at high risk, whereas the Findings report a higher rate—73.5%—among those with diagnosed prediabetes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The current DPP infrastructure is underutilized.

    “Thus, the current DPP infrastructure is underutilized, and more methods that increase access and engagement are needed.”

    From Effects of a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program: An RCT (2022) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Discussion reports exceedingly low engagement in diabetes-prevention programs and recommends improving access and engagement. It does not establish that existing infrastructure has unused capacity: it says program supply may be insufficient, not matched by uptake, or both. The claim therefore states underutilization more definitively than the paper does (Discussion; page not provided). (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Conventional type 2 diabetes prevention programs are significantly underutilized.

    “Conventional Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention programs provide key educational components but are significantly underutilized (Ali et al., 2019)”
  • Of U.S. adults at high risk for diabetes who received diabetes risk-reduction advice or referral, only 34% reported participating in a weight loss program.

    “of those receiving advice/referral, only 34% reported participating in a weight loss program”

    From Effects of a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program: An RCT (2022) · cites this paper as [4]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [36]Berg S 7 steps to get prediabetic patients the preventive help they need. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/diabetes/7-steps-get-prediabetic-patients-preventive-help-they-need. Published October 4, 2018. Accessed April 4, 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ali, M. K., McKeever Bullard, K., Imperatore, G., Benoit, S. R., Rolka, D. B., Albright, A. L., & Gregg, E. W.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Corresponding author
Ali, Mohammed K.
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2019-05-10
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
e193160
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2943880671
Cited by
153
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 3
FWCI
14.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK111024)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
type 2 diabetes prevention, prediabetes, Diabetes Prevention Program, lifestyle modification, physician referral, slimming program, exercise recommendations, dietary recommendations, body mass index, diabetes risk score, health care access disparities, health insurance status, cardiovascular risk reduction, United States adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Health Promotion, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Prediabetic State, United States, Health Behavior, Case-Control Studies, Risk Reduction Behavior, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review