Cited by 62Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Evidence and challenges for translation and population impact of the Diabetes Prevention Program.

Open access
Ackermann, Ronald T., O’Brien, Matthew J.·2020·Current Diabetes Reports

Abstract

Purpose of review Type 2 diabetes is common, burdensome, and preventable. Landmark trials such as the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) demonstrated that resource-intensive lifestyle support interventions resulting in modest weight loss via healthy diet changes and physical activity can lower the rate of diabetes development by 58%. We performed a review of efforts to translate and implement DPP-like programs throughout the USA to identify challenges and opportunities for improvement.Recent findings For more than a decade, multiple stakeholders have worked to translate evidence-based principles of diabetes prevention to reach 84 million Americans with prediabetes. DPP-like programs have been delivered by over 1500 organizations, reaching almost 300,000 people, but this number represents less than 1% of the target population. Research has uncovered large gaps in efforts to diagnose, raise awareness, and provide access to DPP-like programs for adults with prediabetes, requiring further stakeholder engagement and coordination to resolve. Efforts to address prevailing gaps in diabetes prevention must address distinct and sometimes conflicting priorities and concerns of stakeholders. Our review recommends several areas of further research and action to improve type 2 diabetes prevention on a population scale.

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 · 10.1007/s11892-020-1293-4

Cites

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?

  • DPP implementation is limited: there are 1549 CDC-recognized DPPs nationwide (1 per 63,000 adults with prediabetes), and only about 35% of referred individuals participate.

    “There are 1549 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)–recognized DPPs nationwide, translating to 1 program for every 63 000 adults with prediabetes, and only about 35% of those referred ultimately participate.7”

    From An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The 'Priorities and Concerns for Public Health Stakeholders' section reports 1,520 registered DPP suppliers, approximately one-third with full recognition—not 1,549 CDC-recognized programs. The 'Priorities and Concerns for Individuals' section reports that 39.6% of referred adults took part, rather than about 35%. The paper supports the broader point that program reach is limited, but does not give the claimed ratio of one program per 63,000 adults with prediabetes. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 62

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]21. Tice JA, Chapman R, Shore KK, Seidner M, Ollendorf DA, Weissberg J, et al. Diabetes prevention programs: effectiveness and value. Boston: Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, (2016). [Available from: https://icer-review.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/ CTAF\_DPP\_Draft\_Evidence\_Report\_050916-1.pdf.]

Authors
Ackermann, R. T., & O’Brien, M. J.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Ackermann, Ronald T.
Venue
Current Diabetes Reports
Published
2020-02-20
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
9-9
ISSN
  • 1534-4827 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-0829
OpenAlex
W3008729977
Cited by
62
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Diabetes Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18-HS026172)
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 › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 2 diabetes prevention, Diabetes Prevention Program, prediabetes, lifestyle intervention, weight loss, physical activity, healthy eating, program implementation, evidence translation, stakeholder engagement, diabetes awareness, population effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Health Promotion, Humans, Life Style, Prediabetic State, Public Health, United States, Program Evaluation, Weight Loss, Exercise

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