Activity and sedentary time 10 years after a successful lifestyle intervention: the Diabetes Prevention Program
Open accessAbstract
Introduction This study aims to determine if evidence exists for a lasting effect of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle intervention on activity levels by comparing objectively collected activity data between the DPP Outcome Study (DPPOS) cohort and adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; 2003-2006).Methods Average minutes/day of light and moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary behavior from ActiGraph accelerometers (collected 2010-2012) were examined (2013-2014) for comparable DPPOS and NHANES subgroups by age, sex, and diabetes status. Longitudinal questionnaire data on leisure activity, collected yearly from DPP baseline to the time of accelerometer measurement (1996-2010; 11.9-year mean follow-up), were also examined to provide support for a long-term intervention effect.Results Average minutes/day of accelerometer-derived MVPA was higher in all DPPOS subgroups versus NHANES subgroups of similar age/sex/diabetes status; with values as much as twice as high in some DPPOS subgroups. Longitudinal questionnaire data from DPP/DPPOS showed a maintained increase of 1.24 MET hours/week (p=0.026) of leisure activity in DPPOS participants from all original study arms between DPP baseline and accelerometer recording. There were no consistent differences between comparable DPPOS and NHANES subgroups for accelerometer-derived sedentary or light-intensity activity minutes/day.Conclusions More than 10 years after the start of DPP, DPPOS participants performed more accelerometer-measured MVPA than similar adults from NHANES. Longitudinal questionnaire data support the accelerometer-based findings by suggesting that leisure activity levels at the time of accelerometer recording remained higher than DPP baseline levels.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The incidence of diabetes was reduced in the lifestyle intervention and metformin arms compared with placebo by 58% and 31%, respectively, after a mean of 2.8 years of follow-up during the masked treatment phase.
“The incidence of diabetes was reduced in the lifestyle intervention and metformin arms compared with placebo by 58% and 31%, respectively, after a mean of 2.8 years of follow-up during the masked treatment phase.”
From The impact of physical activity on the prevention of type 2 diabetes: Evidence and lessons learned from the Diabetes Prevention Program, a long-standing clinical trial incorporating subjective and objective activity measures (2021) · cites this paper as [4]
The Methods (Study Sample) report 58% lower diabetes incidence in the lifestyle arm and 31% lower incidence in the metformin arm versus placebo. However, they say the DPP ended after an average follow-up of 3.2 years, with results published after 2.8 years; they do not describe 2.8 years as the mean follow-up during a masked treatment phase. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe DPP was a multicenter (27 centers), randomized controlled clinical trial designed to determine whether treatment with lifestyle intervention or metformin could prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in high-risk adults.
“The DPP (1996-2001) was a multicenter (27 centers), randomized controlled clinical trial designed to determine whether treatment with lifestyle intervention or metformin could prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in high-risk adults.”
From The impact of physical activity on the prevention of type 2 diabetes: Evidence and lessons learned from the Diabetes Prevention Program, a long-standing clinical trial incorporating subjective and objective activity measures (2021) · cites this paper as [4]
The Methods (Study Sample; page not provided) describes the DPP as a multicenter randomized controlled trial testing whether metformin or lifestyle intervention could prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in high-risk adults, and places the DPP cohort in 1996–2001. It does not substantiate the claimed 27 centers; it instead refers to 26 DPP clinical centers in the later accelerometer study. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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 44 · Cited by 21
- Authors
- Rockette-Wagner, B., Storti, K. L., Dabelea, D., Edelstein, S., Florez, H., Franks, P. W., Montez, M. G., Pomeroy, J., & Kriska, A. M.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
- George Washington University (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-03
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 292-299
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5318249
- OpenAlex
- W2549897028
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- American Diabetes Association
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK048339, U01DK048375, U01DK048397, U01DK048413, DK048489, U01DK048485, U01DK048400, U01DK048380, U01DK048412, U01DK048437, U01DK048514, U01DK048489, R01DK081345, U01DK048407, U01DK048443, U01DK048404, P30DK017047)
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- National Center for Research Resources
- Office of Research on Women's Health
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- Diabetes Prevention Program, lifestyle intervention, physical activity, sedentary behavior, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, light physical activity, long-term intervention effects, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes prevention, leisure-time physical activity, accelerometer-measured activity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Leisure Activities, Life Style, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Surveys and Questionnaires, Time Factors, Cohort Studies, Health Behavior, Exercise, Sedentary Behavior, Accelerometry
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
