Cited by 14Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsObesity and Health Practices

The Reach of an Urban Hospital System-Based Diabetes Prevention Program: Patient Engagement and Weight Loss Characteristics

Open access
Chambers, Earle C., Gonzalez, Jeffrey S., Marquez, Melinda E., Parsons, Amanda, Rehm, Colin D.·2019·The Diabetes Educator

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify patient and program delivery characteristics associated with engagement and weight loss in a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) implemented in an urban hospital system. Methods: Patient and program delivery data were collected between July 2015 and December 2017. DPP eligibility was determined based on age, body mass index (BMI), and hemoglobin A1C data via the electronic health record. Engagement was measured at 3 levels: ≤3 sessions, 4 to 8 sessions, and ≥9 sessions. Weight was measured at each DPP session. Results: Among the eligible patients (N = 31 524), referrals and engagement were lower in men than women, in Spanish speakers than English speakers, in younger (18-34 years) and middle-aged (35-54 years) than older adults, and in patients receiving Medicaid than other patients. Referral and engagement were higher in patients with higher BMIs and those prescribed ≥5 medications. Current smokers were less frequently engaged. Prior health care provider contact was associated with higher engagement. Overall, 28% of DPP participants achieved ≥5% weight loss; younger and middle-aged patients and those who gained weight in the prior 2 years were less likely to lose weight. Conclusion: This assessment identified characteristics of patients with lower levels of referral and engagement. The DPP staff may need to increase outreach to address barriers to referral and during all points of engagement among men, younger patients, and Spanish speakers. Future research is needed to increase understanding with regard to why referrals and engagement are lower among these groups.

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 · 10.1177/0145721719880503

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • High initial no-shows among enrollees overall are 25-60%, and appear higher for racial/ethnic minority, low-income, and younger participants.

    “Another challenge is high initial “no shows” among enrollees overall (25–60%),21–23 which appear higher yet for racial/ethnic minority, low-income, and younger participants.”

    From <p>Current Perspectives on the Impact of the National Diabetes Prevention Program: Building on Successes and Overcoming Challenges</p> (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results (Characteristics Associated With Engagement; page unavailable) report 247 patients placed in a class who never attended and 747 who started—about 25% of those placed did not attend. The paper also reports lower engagement among younger patients and Medicaid patients, but it does not establish a 25–60% overall initial no-show range or show that initial no-show rates were higher for all three named demographic groups. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chambers, E. C., Gonzalez, J. S., Marquez, M. E., Parsons, A., & Rehm, C. D.
Affiliations
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Montefiore Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Chambers, Earle C.
Venue
The Diabetes Educator
Published
2019-10-14
Volume
45
Issue
6
Pages
616-628
ISSN
  • 0145-7217 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-6063
OpenAlex
W2981219898
Cited by
14
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K01HL125466, P30 DK020541, P30 DK111022, R01 DK104845, R03 HL140265, R18 DK098742)
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 › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
Keywords
Diabetes Prevention Program, prediabetes, patient engagement, weight loss, referral barriers, Medicaid, Spanish speakers, sex differences, age differences, smoking, medication burden
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Health Promotion, Glycated Hemoglobin, Hospitals, Urban, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Referral and Consultation, Program Evaluation, Weight Loss, Body Mass Index, 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