To assess retention in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle change program, which seeks to prevent type 2 diabetes in adults at high risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We analyzed retention among 41,203 individuals who enrolled in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recognized in-person lifestyle change programs at organizations that submitted data to CDC's Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program during January 2012-February 2017. RESULTS Weekly attrition rates were typically <1-2% but were between 3.5% and 5% at week 2 and at weeks 17 and 18, where session frequency typically transitions from weekly to monthly. The percentage of participants retained through 18 weeks varied by age (45.9% for 18-29 year olds, 53.4% for 30-44 year olds, 60.2% for 45-54 year olds, 66.7% for 55-64 year olds, and 67.6% for ‡65 year olds), race/ethnicity (70.5% for non-Hispanic whites, 60.5% for non-Hispanic blacks, 52.6% for Hispanics, and 50.6% for other), mean weekly percentage of body weight lost (41.0% for £0% lost, 66.2% for >0% to <0.25% lost, 72.9% for 0.25% to <0.5% lost, and 73.9% for ‡0.5% lost), and mean weekly physical activity minutes (12.8% for 0 min, 56.1% for >0 to <60 min, 74.8% for 60 to <150 min, and 82.8% for ‡150 min) but not by sex (63.0% for men and 63.1% for women). CONCLUSIONS Our results demonstrate the need to identify strategies to improve retention, especially among individuals who are younger or are members of racial/ethnic minority populations and among those who report less physical activity or less early weight loss. Strategies that address retention after the first session and during the transition from weekly to monthly sessions offer the greatest opportunity for impact. An estimated 30.3 million people in the U.S. have diabetes (1). Diabetes is associated with millions of hospitalizations each year for major cardiovascular diseases; can lead to other serious outcomes such as chronic kidney disease, vision loss, and lowerextremity amputation; and is the seventh leading cause of death (1). Furthermore, individuals with diabetes incur increased medical expenditures (2,3), with direct and
Problem/ConditionDiabetes self-management education (DSME) is a clinical practice intended to improve preventive practices and behaviors with a focus on decision-making, problem-solving, and self-care. The distribution and correlates of established DSME programs in nonmetropolitan counties across the United States have not been previously described, nor have the characteristics of the nonmetropolitan counties with DSME programs.Reporting PeriodJuly 2016.Description of SystemsDSME programs recognized by the American Diabetes Association or accredited by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (i.e., active programs) as of July 2016 were shared with CDC by both organizations. The U.S. Census Bureau’s census geocoder was used to identify the county of each DSME program site using documented addresses. County characteristic data originated from the U.S. Census Bureau, compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service into the 2013 Atlas of Rural and Small-Town America data set. County levels of diagnosed diabetes prevalence and incidence, as well as the number of persons with diagnosed diabetes, were previously estimated by CDC. This report defined nonmetropolitan counties using the rural-urban continuum code from the 2013 Atlas of Rural and Small-Town America data set. This code included six nonmetropolitan categories of 1,976 urban and rural counties (62% of counties) adjacent to and nonadjacent to metropolitan counties.ResultsIn 2016, a total of 1,065 DSME programs were located in 38% of the 1,976 nonmetropolitan counties; 62% of nonmetropolitan counties did not have a DSME program. The total number of DSME programs for nonmetropolitan counties with at least one DSME program ranged from 1 to 8, with an average of 1.4 programs. After adjusting for county-level characteristics, the odds of a nonmetropolitan county having at least one DSME program increased as the percentage insured increased (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08–1.13), the percentage with a high school education or less decreased (AOR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.04–1.07), the unemployment rate decreased (AOR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.11–1.23), and the natural logarithm of the number of persons with diabetes increased (AOR = 3.63, 95% CI = 3.15–4.19).InterpretationIn 2016, there were few DMSE programs in nonmetropolitan, socially disadvantaged counties in the United States. The number of persons with diabetes, percentage insured, percentage with a high school education or less, and the percentage unemployed were significantly associated with whether a DSME program was located in a nonmetropolitan county.Public Health ActionMonitoring the distribution of DSME programs at the county level provides insight needed to strategically address rural disparities in diabetes care and outcomes. These findings provide information needed to assess lack of availability of DSME programs and to explore evidence-based strategies and innovative technologies to deliver DSME programs in underserved rural communities.
Objectives: National data on COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women are limited. We assessed COVID-19 vaccination coverage and intent, factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination, reasons for nonvaccination, and knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs related to COVID-19 illness and vaccination among pregnant women in the United States. Methods: Data from an opt-in internet panel survey of pregnant women conducted March 31–April 16, 2021, assessed receipt of ≥1 dose of any COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. The sample included 1516 women pregnant any time during December 1, 2020–April 16, 2021, who were not fully vaccinated before pregnancy. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine variables independently associated with receipt of COVID-19 vaccine. Results: As of April 16, 2021, 21.7% of pregnant women had received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, 24.0% intended to receive a vaccine, 17.2% were unsure, and 37.1% did not intend to receive a vaccine. Pregnant women with (vs without) a health care provider recommendation (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 4.86), those who lived (vs not) with someone with a condition that could increase risk for serious medical complications of COVID-19 (aPR = 2.11), and those who had received (vs not) an influenza vaccination (aPR = 2.35) were more likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Common reasons for nonvaccination included concerns about safety risk to baby (37.2%) or self (34.6%) and about rapid vaccine development (29.7%) and approval (30.9%). Conclusions: Our findings indicate a continued need to emphasize the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and to widely disseminate the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other clinical professional societies for all pregnant women to be vaccinated.
Introduction Healthcare personnel are at increased risk for COVID-19 from workplace exposure. National estimates on COVID-19 vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel are limited. Methods Data from an opt-in Internet panel survey of 2,434 healthcare personnel, conducted on March 30, 2021–April 15, 2021, were analyzed to assess the receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination intent. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination and intent for vaccination. Results Overall, 68.2% of healthcare personnel reported a receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% would probably/definitely get vaccinated, 7.1% were unsure, and 14.9% would probably/definitely not get vaccinated. COVID-19 vaccination coverage was highest among physicians (89.0%), healthcare personnel working in hospitals (75.0%), and healthcare personnel of non-Hispanic White or other race (75.7%–77.4%). Healthcare personnel who received influenza vaccine in 2020–2021 (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.92) and those aged ≥60 years (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.37) were more likely to report a receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Non-Hispanic Black healthcare personnel (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.74), nurse practitioners/physician assistants (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.55), assistants/aides (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.73), and nonclinical healthcare personnel (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.79) were less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine. The common reasons for vaccination included protecting self (88.1%), family and friends (86.3%), and patients (69.2%) from COVID-19. The most common reason for nonvaccination was concern about side effects and safety of COVID-19 vaccine (59.7%). Conclusions Understanding vaccination status and intent among healthcare personnel is important for addressing barriers to vaccination. Addressing concerns on side effects, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as well as their fast development and approval may help improve vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel.
Purpose The purpose of the study was to examine how gender was related to enrollment and number of sessions attended in the National Diabetes Prevention Program’s Lifestyle Change Program (DPP LCP). Methods To better understand program uptake, a population of those who would be eligible for the LCP was compared to those who enrolled. Estimates of those eligible were computed using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, whereas enrollment and sessions attended were computed using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program. Results Results revealed that although similar numbers of males and females were eligible for the program, only 39 321 males versus 121 007 females had enrolled in the National DPP LCP by the end of 2017 (odds ratio = 3.20; 95% CI, 3.17-3.24). The gender differences persisted even when stratifying by age or race/ethnicity. In contrast, no significant gender differences were found between the average number of sessions attended for males (14.0) and females (13.8). Discussion Results of the study can help inform efforts to market and tailor programs to appeal more directly to men and other groups that are underrepresented in the National DPP LCP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.