Effects of a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program: An RCT.

INTRODUCTION: In light of the need to expand the reach and access of clinically proven digital Diabetes Prevention Programs (d-DPPs) and the need for rigorous evidence of effectiveness, the purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a digital Diabetes Prevention Program for improving weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk factors among people with prediabetes compared to enhanced standard care plus waitlist control. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-blind RCT among participants at risk of developing type 2 diabetes and included 12 months of follow-up. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 599 volunteer patients with prediabetes were recruited primarily through electronic medical records and primary care practices. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to either a d-DPP (n=299) or a single-session small-group diabetes-prevention education class (n=300) focused on action planning for weight loss. The d-DPPs consisted of 52 weekly sessions, lifestyle coaching, virtual peer support, and behavior tracking tools. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a change in HbA1c from baseline to 12 months using intent-to-treat analyses. On the basis of multiple comparisons of endpoints, 95% CIs are presented and 2-sided p<0.025 was required for statistical significance. Secondary outcomes included body weight and cardiovascular disease risk factors. RESULTS: Among 599 randomized participants (mean age=55.4 years, 61.4% women), 483 (80%) completed the study. The d-DPPs produced significantly greater reductions in HbA1c (0.08%, 95% CI= -0.12, -0.03) and percentage change in body weight (-5.5% vs -2.1%, p<0.001) at 12 months. A greater proportion of the d-DPPs group achieved a clinically significant weight loss ≥5% (43% vs 21%, p<0.001), and more participants shifted from prediabetes to normal HbA1c range (58% vs 48%, p=0.04). Engagement in d-DPPs was significantly related to improved HbA1c and weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: This d-DPPs demonstrated clinical effectiveness and has significant potential for widespread dissemination and impact, particularly considering the growing demand for telemedicine in preventive healthcare services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03312764).

Using a population health management approach to enroll participants in a diabetes prevention trial: reach outcomes from the PREDICTS randomized clinical trial.

Population health management (PHM) strategies to address diabetes prevention have the potential to engage large numbers of at-risk individuals in a short duration. We examined a PHM approach to recruit participants to a diabetes prevention clinical trial in a metropolitan health system. We examined reach and representativeness and assessed differences from active and passive respondents to recruitment outreach, and participants enrolled through two clinical screening protocols. The PHM approach included an electronic health record (EHR) query, physician review of identified patients, letter invitation, and telephone follow-up. Data describe the reach and representativeness of potential participants at multiple stages during the recruitment process. Subgroup analyses examined proportional reach, participant differences based on passive versus active recruitment response, and clinical screening method used to determine diabetes risk status. The PHM approach identified 10,177 potential participants to receive a physician letter invitation, 60% were contacted by telephone, 2,796 (46%) completed telephone screening, 1,961 were eligible from telephone screen, and 599 were enrolled in 15 months. Accrual was unaffected by shifting clinical screening protocols despite the increase in participant burden. Relative to census data, study participants were more likely to be obese, female, older, and Caucasian. Relative to the patient population, enrolled participants were less likely to be Black and were older. Active respondents were more likely to have a higher income than passive responders. PHM strategies have the potential to reach a large number of participants in a relatively short period, though concerted efforts are needed to increase participant diversity.

Protocol for serious fall injury adjudication in the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) study.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes a protocol for determining the incidence of serious fall injuries for Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE), a large, multicenter pragmatic clinical trial with limited resources for event adjudication. We describe how administrative data (from participating health systems and Medicare claims) can be used to confirm participant-reported events, with more time- and resource-intensive full-text medical record data used only on an "as-needed" basis. METHODS: STRIDE is a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 5451 participants age ≥ 70 and at increased risk for falls, served by 86 primary care practices in 10 US health systems. The STRIDE intervention involves a nurse falls care manager who assesses a participant's underlying risks for falls, suggests interventions using motivational interviewing, and then creates, implements and longitudinally follows up on an individualized care plan with the participant (and caregiver when appropriate), in partnership with the participant's primary care provider. STRIDE's primary outcome is serious fall injuries, defined as a fall resulting in: (1) medical attention billable according to Medicare guidelines with a) fracture (excluding isolated thoracic vertebral and/or lumbar vertebral fracture), b) joint dislocation, or c) cut requiring closure; OR (2) overnight hospitalization with a) head injury, b) sprain or strain, c) bruising or swelling, or d) other injury determined to be "serious" (i.e., burn, rhabdomyolysis, or internal injury). Two sources of data are required to confirm a serious fall injury. The primary data source is the participant's self-report of a fall leading to medical attention, identified during telephone interview every 4 months, with the confirmatory source being (1) administrative data capturing encounters at the participating health systems or Medicare claims and/or (2) the full text of medical records requested only as needed. DISCUSSION: Adjudication is ongoing, with over 1000 potentially qualifying events adjudicated to date. Administrative data can be successfully used for adjudication, as part of a hybrid approach that retrieves full-text medical records only when needed. With the continued refinement and availability of administrative data sources, future studies may be able to use administrative data completely in lieu of medical record review to maximize the quality of adjudication with finite resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02475850).