Cited by 211Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and EducationHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Early Outcomes From the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme

Open access
Valabhji, Jonathan, Barron, Emma, Bradley, Dominique, Bakhai, Chirag, Fagg, Jamie, O’Neill, Simon, Young, Bob, Wareham, Nick +3 more·2020·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess weight and HbA1c changes in the Healthier You: National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP), the largest DPP globally to achieve universal population coverage. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A service evaluation assessed intervention effectiveness for adults with nondiabetic hyperglycemia (HbA1c 42–47 mmol/mol [6.0–6.4%] or fasting plasma glucose 5.5–6.9 mmol/L) between program launch in June 2016 and December 2018, using prospectively collected, national service–level data in England. RESULTS: By December 2018, 324,699 people had been referred, 152,294 had attended the initial assessment, and 96,442 had attended at least 1 of 13 group-based intervention sessions. Allowing sufficient time to elapse, 53% attended an initial assessment, 36% attended at least one group-based session, and 19% completed the intervention (attended >60% of sessions). Of the 32,665 who attended at least one intervention session and had sufficient time to finish, 17,252 (53%) completed: intention-to-treat analyses demonstrated a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg (95% CI 2.2, 2.3) and an HbA1c reduction of 1.26 mmol/mol (1.20, 1.31) (0.12% [0.11, 0.12]); completer analysis demonstrated a mean weight loss of 3.3 kg (3.2, 3.4) and an HbA1c reduction of 2.04 mmol/mol (1.96, 2.12) (0.19% [0.18, 0.19]). Younger age, female sex, Asian and black ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and normal baseline BMI were associated with less weight loss. Older age, female sex, black ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and baseline overweight and obesity were associated with a smaller HbA1c reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in weight and HbA1c compare favorably with those reported in recent meta-analyses of pragmatic studies and suggest likely future reductions in participant type 2 diabetes incidence.

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 · 10.2337/dc19-1425

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • Traditional methods such as the Diabetes Prevention Program rely on periodic clinical visits, one-on-one coaching, and self-reported data.

    “Traditional methods such as the widely used Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) often rely on periodic clinical visits, one-on-one coaching, and self-reported data9.”

    From Impact of digital health interventions on glycemic control and weight management. (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Intervention section describes recurring face-to-face sessions over at least nine months, supporting periodic contact. But it specifies group-based sessions, not one-on-one coaching. The Data collection section says coaches measured participants’ weight and providers assessed HbA1c, rather than relying on self-reported data; neither section describes the sessions as clinical visits. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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
Valabhji, J., Barron, E., Bradley, D., Bakhai, C., Fagg, J., O’Neill, S., Young, B., Wareham, N., Khunti, K., Jebb, S., & Smith, J.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • Public Health England (GB)
  • NHS England (GB)
  • Public Health England, London, U.K.
  • Diabetes UK (GB)
  • MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Valabhji, Jonathan
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2019-12-12
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
152-160
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2983543672
Cited by
211
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 10
FWCI
15.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0617-10064, NF-SI-0617-10080, NF-SI-0617-10149)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/1, MR/J000515/1)
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
diabetes prevention programmes, prediabetes, weight loss, HbA1c reduction, intervention attendance, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, baseline BMI, type 2 diabetes prevention
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, England, Female, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Prediabetic State, Preventive Health Services, Preventive Medicine, State Medicine, Weight Loss, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Weight Reduction Programs

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