Prevalence and Correlates of Diabetes Prevention Program Referral and Participation
Abstract
Introduction As the burden of type 2 diabetes rises, there is increasing focus on improving the reach of evidence-based lifestyle interventions. Using nationally representative data, this study identifies how frequently at-risk adults are being referred to and participating in diabetes prevention programming, and explores correlates of referral, participation, and interest. Methods Data from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, a cross-sectional survey of U.S. households, were analyzed in 2017. The study population consisted of adults (aged ≥18 years) without a self-reported diabetes diagnosis, who were likely eligible for diabetes prevention programming based on (1) self-reported diagnosis of prediabetes or gestational diabetes, and (2) meeting BMI criteria. Prevalence of self-reported referral and participation was determined, and sociodemographic correlates of referral, participation, and interest were characterized through multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results The study population consisted of 2,341 adults. The majority were female (63%), white (74.6%), non-Hispanic (83.4%), and aged ≥45 years (68.2%). A total of 4.2% reported ever being referred to a 12-month prevention program and only 2.4% reported ever participating. In multivariable logistic regression, race was correlated with referral (black and Asian adults more likely to report referral) and age was positively correlated with participation. More than 25% of adults who were never referred or pa…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 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 [6]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 8 · Cited by 82
- Authors
- Venkataramani, M., Pollack, C. E., Yeh, H.-C., & Maruthur, N. M.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Venkataramani, Maya
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 452-457
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2910144265
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 8.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Gilead Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
- Keywords
- Diabetes Prevention Program, program participation, prediabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, obesity, lifestyle intervention, racial disparities, National Health Interview Survey
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Prediabetic State, Referral and Consultation, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Body Mass Index, Prevalence, Logistic Models, 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