Cited by 70Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Current Perspectives on the Impact of the National Diabetes Prevention Program: Building on Successes and Overcoming Challenges

Open access
Ritchie, Natalie D, Baucom, Katherine JW, Sauder, Katherine A·2020·Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy

Abstract

To address the public health and economic burden of type 2 diabetes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began dissemination of the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) in the United States in 2010. Based on the intensive lifestyle intervention from a large efficacy trial, the NDPP aims to reduce incidence through lifestyle change and weight loss. This narrative review summarizes evidence on reach, effectiveness, and sustainability of the NDPP, while highlighting opportunities to overcome challenges in these areas. Major successes include reaching hundreds of thousands of at-risk individuals across the nation, with notable effectiveness upon full participation and widespread insurance coverage. Yet, more work is needed to ensure greater public health impact, particularly among priority populations at heightened risk who also experience disparities in program outcomes. Preliminary evidence suggests a number of strategies may improve reach and effectiveness of the NDPP, often with more rigorous study needed prior to widespread uptake. Updating the NDPP to better match the current evidence-base may also be important, such as directly targeting glycemia with a patient-centered approach and promoting metformin as an adjunct or second-line treatment. Finally, revisiting pay-for-performance reimbursement models may be critical to sustainability by ensuring adequate availability of suppliers and ultimately reducing diabetes prevalence.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This narrative review summarizes the reach, effectiveness, and sustainability of the CDC’s National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) since its 2010 dissemination. It highlights substantial scaling and payer coverage but concludes that reach, outcomes, and supplier sustainability remain insufficient for population-level impact, especially among priority populations.

Key findings

  • Reach grew from about 35,000 eligible participants served as of 2016 to over 324,000 by early 2019, with over 1,500 NDPP sites as of 2020 across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and most US territories; online delivery exceeds in-person reach despite later approval.
  • Effectiveness is promising but incomplete: mean weight loss was 4.2% for in-person NDPP classes and 4.3% for virtual programs, yet 71.7% of participants did not achieve the ≥5% weight loss goal; each session attended was associated with 0.3% more weight loss, and median attendance was only 134 days.
  • Disparities persist: only 24.7% of participants were men, average participant age was 55.1, initial no-shows ranged from 25–60% and were higher for racial/ethnic minority, low-income, and younger participants, and women, younger adults, and racial/ethnic minority and low-income participants lost about half as much weight as their counterparts.
  • Sustainability is threatened by low reimbursement: private-payer delivery costs were 275–425 USD per participant versus average reimbursement of 212 USD; Medicare first-year in-person costs were 553–800 USD versus reimbursement of 108–190 USD; Minnesota Medicaid costs were 767–915 USD versus estimated average reimbursement of 163 USD; over 3,000 organizations provided the NDPP between 2012–2019, but only half remained in 2020.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review of recent literature and reports on NDPP dissemination in the US, organized around reach, effectiveness, and sustainability.
  • Data: published studies, CDC reports and registries, payer/coverage reports, and other program evaluations; no systematic search or meta-analytic pooling is described.
  • Analysis: narrative synthesis of successes and challenges, with suggested strategies summarized in Table 1.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a formal limitations section. It states that incident type 2 diabetes has not yet been systematically examined as a program outcome, that effectiveness in terms of glycemia and incident diabetes is largely unknown, and that more rigorous study is needed before widespread uptake of many proposed strategies.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not describe a systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, or risk-of-bias assessment, and it relies on heterogeneous reports with varying outcome definitions and revised CDC evaluation standards over time.
  • Evident from the text: outcome data are typically examined only for participants who attend a minimum number of sessions or have a minimum number of recorded weights, which may bias retention and weight-loss estimates.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/dmso.s218334

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

15 of 35 cited sources checked · 9 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Population reach increased from about 35,000 eligible participants as of 2016 to over 324,000 by early 2019.

    “In turn, population reach has been fast increasing from about 35,000 eligible participants served as of 20163 to over 324,000 by early 2019.10”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Ely, 2017, Diab Care source
    • cites [10] Gruss, 2019, Curr Diab Rep source

      The “Analysis Sample” section reports that more than 297,000 people attended at least one National DPP session through January 2019, supporting substantial reach by early 2019. It does not establish the cited figure of over 324,000. The 2016 figure has a separate citation in the citing sentence and is not assessed against this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Online delivery exceeds the reach of in-person NDPP programs.

    “Indeed, despite fewer online than in-person NDPP suppliers7 and later approval for dissemination, online delivery exceeds the reach of in-person programs.10”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] CDC. Diabetes prevention recognition program registry of recognized organizations. Available from: https://nccd.cdc.gov/DDT_DPRP/Registry.aspx. Accessed April 8, 2020.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [10] Gruss, 2019, Curr Diab Rep source
  • Premisecitation

    For a private payer example, cost of delivering an early version of the in-person NDPP appeared to range from 275-425 USD per participant with average reimbursement of 212 USD, leaving a gap of 63-213 USD.

    “For a private payer example, cost of delivering an early version of the in-person NDPP appeared to range from 275–425 USD per participant68 with average reimbursement of 212 USD,59 leaving a gap of 63–213 USD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [68] Ackermann, 2007, Diabetes Educ source
    • cites [59] Ackermann, 2019, Diab Care source
  • Interpretationcitation

    MDPP site shortages in states with the largest racial/ethnic minority populations continue patterns observed with NDPP availability.

    “continuing patterns observed with NDPP availability.11”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Jayapaul-Philip, 2018, Prev Chronic Dis source

      The Main Findings report fewer National DPP class locations in counties with higher diabetes incidence or greater socioeconomic disadvantage. The paper does not analyze availability by state racial or ethnic minority population, so it does not establish that the specific MDPP site-shortage pattern described here was previously observed for the National DPP. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Each session attended is associated with 0.3% more weight loss.

    “Improving retention appears key overall to ensuring beneficial weight loss outcomes (e.g., each session attended is associated with 0.3% more weight loss).3”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Ely, 2017, Diab Care source
  • May combine two claims. 7
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 2
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [21] Ritchie, 2018, Am J Health Promot source
    • cites [22] Ritchie, 2017, Am J Prev Med source
    • cites [23] Chambers, 2019, Diabetes Educ source

      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
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A large study led by the American Medical Association found 56% enrollment upon point-of-care referrals to the NDPP and 11% enrollment using a retrospective, algorithm-based approach to referrals.

    “A large study led by the American Medical Association found 56% enrollment upon point-of-care referrals to the NDPP and 11% enrollment using a retrospective, algorithm-based approach to referrals.16”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Holliday, 2019, Prev Chronic Dis source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Men and younger individuals are under-represented in the NDPP; only 24.7% of NDPP participants were men in a 2019 CDC report.

    “A challenge is that men and younger individuals are under-represented in the NDPP, and additional participation gaps exist for priority populations.”
    • Also stated in: § Overcoming Challenges with Reach · plain
      “In a 2019 CDC report, only 24.7% of NDPP participants were men,10 despite their higher prevalence of prediabetes compared to women (37.4% vs. 29.2%).1”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] Gruss, 2019, Curr Diab Rep source
    • cites [1] CDC. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020: Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States. Atlanta:GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2020.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Reports show a promising 4.2% mean weight loss for in-person NDPP classes and 4.3% weight loss for virtual programs.

    “Reports show a promising 4.2% mean weight loss for in-person NDPP classes3 and 4.3% weight loss for virtual programs.31”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Ely, 2017, Diab Care source
    • cites [31] Joiner, 2017, Prev Med source

      The Results report 4.31% mean weight loss for DPP-based eHealth interventions with remote counselor support, matching the cited 4.3% after rounding. That figure applies to a subgroup, not virtual programs generally; the overall estimate for all eHealth interventions was 3.98%. The separate 4.2% in-person-class claim is attached to citation 3, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Three-quarters of NDPP participants do not achieve the ≥5% weight loss goal.

    “Three-quarters of participants do not achieve ≥5% weight loss goal”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Median attendance is only 134 days, such that most participants complete less than half of the yearlong program.

    “Yet median attendance is only 134 days, such that most participants complete less than half of the yearlong program.38”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [38] Easterbrook, 1991, Lancet source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Effectiveness of the NDPP in terms of glycemia and incident diabetes is largely unknown.

    “Effectiveness in terms of glycemia and incident diabetes is largely unknown”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Low payments afford short-term benefits to payers but represent a missed opportunity for substantial long-term savings from reduced diabetes prevalence.

    “Low payments afford short-term benefits to payers, but missed opportunity for substantial long-term savings from reduced diabetes prevalence”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    75% of US states/territories had no MDPP sites, <1 site per 100,000 beneficiaries, and/or availability limited to a single municipality.

    “Specifically, 75% of US states/territories had no MDPP sites, <1 site per 100,000 beneficiaries, and/or availability limited to a single municipality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [74] Ritchie ND, Sauder KA, Gritz RM. Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program: Where are the Suppliers? Am J Man Care. 2020; 26(6):294-e297.doi:10.37765/ajmc.2020.43496. source
9 of 9
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Initial dissemination of the NDPP was largely supported by time-limited grant funding.

    “Long-term sustainability of the NDPP is likely dependent on payer coverage as initial dissemination appears largely supported by time-limited grant funding.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) is near-identical to the in-person NDPP.

    “The adapted Medicare-covered model, the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP), is near-identical to the in-person NDPP.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Medicare coverage of the NDPP remains under the umbrella of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Innovation Center.

    “Medicare coverage of the NDPP remains under the umbrella of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Innovation Center”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The lifestyle intervention underlying the NDPP is efficacious for preventing type 2 diabetes.

    “translation of an efficacious lifestyle intervention”
4 of 4

Self-check

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

  • Maximum Medicare reimbursement gap is overstated

    Minor

    The largest possible gap between the stated delivery costs and reimbursements is 800 − 108 = 692 USD, not 792 USD. The stated minimum gap of 363 USD is correct.

    Reported 792 · recomputed 692

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Sinclair-White, 2020, Hawaii J Health Soc Welf, 79, 86
  2. Sauder KA, Ritchie ND, Crowe B, Cox E, Hudson M, Wadhwa S. Participation and weight loss in online National Diabetes Prevention Programs: a comparison of age and gender subgroups. Trans Beh Med. 2020;ibaa048. doi:10.1093/tbm/ibaa048. · DOI
  3. Alpizar, ADCES in Practice
  4. American Diabetes, 2020, Diab Care, 43, S32S36
  5. Parsons, 2018, Am J Manag Care, 24, 475

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ritchie, N. D., Baucom, K. J., & Sauder, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Corresponding author
Ritchie, Natalie D
Venue
Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
Published
2020-08
Volume
Volume 13
Pages
2949-2957
ISSN
1178-7007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3079063442
Cited by
70
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK115820, R01DK119478)
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
National Diabetes Prevention Program, type 2 diabetes prevention, intensive lifestyle intervention, weight loss, diabetes incidence, program reach, program effectiveness, program sustainability, health disparities, glycemic control, metformin, insurance coverage

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-16.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-16.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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