Development of a novel instrument to characterize telemedicine programs in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Given the rapid deployment of telemedicine at the onset of the COVID - 19 pandemic, updated assessment methods are needed to study and characterize telemedicine programs. We developed a novel semi - structured survey instrument to systematically describe the characteristics and implementation processes of telemedicine programs in primary care. METHODS: In the context of a larger study aiming to describe telemedicine programs in primary care, a survey was developed in 3 iterative steps: 1) literature review to obtain a list of telemedicine features, facilitators, and barriers; 2) application of three evaluation frameworks; and 3) stakeholder engagement through a 2-stage feedback process. During survey refinement, items were tested against the evaluation frameworks while ensuring it could be completed within 20-25 min. Data reduction techniques were applied to explore opportunity for condensed variables/items. RESULTS: Sixty initially identified telemedicine features were reduced to 32 items / questions after stakeholder feedback. Per the life cycle framework, respondents are asked to report a month in which their telemedicine program reached a steady state, i.e., "maturation". Subsequent questions on telemedicine features are then stratified by telemedicine services offered at the pandemic onset and the reported point of maturation. Several open - ended questions allow for additional telemedicine experiences to be captured. Data reduction techniques revealed no indication for data reduction. CONCLUSION: This 32-item semi-structured survey standardizes the description of primary care telemedicine programs in terms of features as well as maturation process. This tool will facilitate evaluation of and comparisons between telemedicine programs across the United States, particularly those that were deployed at the pandemic onset.

The Telemedicine Experience in Primary Care Practices in the United States: Insights From Practice Leaders.

PURPOSE: The need to rapidly implement telemedicine in primary care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was addressed differently by various practices. Using qualitative data from semistructured interviews with primary care practice leaders, we aimed to report commonly shared experiences and unique perspectives regarding telemedicine implementation and evolution/maturation since March 2020. METHODS: We administered a semistructured, 25-minute, virtual interview with 25 primary care practice leaders from 2 health systems in 2 states (New York and Florida) included in PCORnet, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute clinical research network. Questions were guided by 3 frameworks (health information technology evaluation, access to care, and health information technology life cycle) and involved practice leaders' perspectives on the process of telemedicine implementation in their practice, with a specific focus on the process of maturation and facilitators/barriers. Two researchers conducted inductive coding of qualitative data open-ended questions to identify common themes. Transcripts were electronically generated by virtual platform software. RESULTS: Twenty-five interviews were administered for practice leaders representing 87 primary care practices in 2 states. We identified the following 4 major themes: (1) the ease of telemedicine adoption depended on both patients' and clinicians' prior experience using virtual health platforms, (2) regulation of telemedicine varied across states and differentially affected the rollout processes, (3) visit triage rules were unclear, and (4) there were positive and negative effects of telemedicine on clinicians and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Practice leaders identified several challenges to telemedicine implementation and highlighted 2 areas, including telemedicine visit triage guidelines and telemedicine-specific staffing and scheduling protocols, for improvement.

Stakeholder engagement infrastructure to support multicenter research networks: Advances from the clinical research networks participating in PCORnet.

Background: The evidence based on the inclusion of patients and other stakeholders as partners in the clinical research process has grown substantially. However, little has been reported on how stakeholders are engaged in the governance of large-scale clinical research networks and the infrastructure used by research networks to support engagement in network-affiliated activities. Objectives: The objective was to document engagement activities and practices emerging from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, specifically regarding governance and engagement infrastructure. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of PCORnet CRN engagement structures, assets, and services, focusing on network oversight structures for policy development and strategic decision-making. The scan included assets and services for supporting patient/stakeholder engagement. Data were collected by searching web-based literature and tool repositories, review of CRN Engagement Plans, analysis of previously collected key informant interviews, and CRN-based iterative review of structured worksheets. Results: We identified 87 discrete engagement structures, assets, and services across nine CRNs. All CRNs engage patients/stakeholders in their governance, maintain workgroups and/or staff dedicated to overseeing engagement strategies, and offer one or more services to non-CRN researchers to enhance conducting engaged clinical research. Conclusions: This work provides an important resource for the research community to explore engagement across peers, reflect on progress, consider opportunities to leverage existing infrastructure, and identify new collaborators. It also serves to highlight PCORnet as a resource for non-CRN researchers seeking to efficiently conduct engaged clinical research and a venue for advancing the science of engagement.

Prescriber Uncertainty as Opportunity to Improve Care of Type 2 Diabetes with Chronic Kidney Disease: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Over 5 million patients in the United States have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) with chronic kidney disease (CKD); antidiabetic drug selection for this population is complex and has important implications for outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To better understand how providers choose antidiabetic drugs in T2D with CKD DESIGN: Mixed methods. Interviews with providers underwent qualitative analysis using grounded theory to identify themes related to antidiabetic drug prescribing. A provider survey used vignettes and direct questions to quantitatively assess prescribers' knowledge and preferences. A retrospective cohort analysis of real-world prescribing data assessed the external validity of the interview and survey findings. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians, endocrinologists, nurse-practitioners, and physicians' assistants were eligible for interviews; primary care physicians and endocrinologists were eligible for the survey; prescribing data were derived from adult patients with serum creatinine data. MAIN MEASURES: Interviews were qualitative; for the survey and retrospective cohort, proportion of patients receiving metformin was the primary outcome. KEY RESULTS: Interviews with 9 providers identified a theme of uncertainty about guidelines for prescribing antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2D and CKD. The survey had 105 respondents: 74 primary care providers and 31 endocrinologists. Metformin was the most common choice for patients with T2D and CKD. Compared to primary care providers, endocrinologists were less likely to prescribe metformin at levels of kidney function at which it is contraindicated and more likely to correctly answer a question about metformin's contraindications (71% versus 41%) (p < .05). Real-world data were consistent with survey findings, and further showed low rates of use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (<10%) in patients with eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSIONS: Providers are unsure how to treat T2D with CKD and incompletely informed as to existing guidelines. This suggests opportunities to improve care.

Use of Focus Groups to Inform a New Community-Based Youth Diabetes Prevention Program.

There have been few youth-led diabetes prevention programs. Our objective was to conduct focus groups to explore peer influences on adolescent lifestyle behaviors and strategies for implementing a youth peer education model for diabetes prevention. We conducted six focus groups with 52 youth (ages 13-22; 62% male, 38% female; 64% Hispanic, 36% non-Hispanic Black) from East Harlem, NYC. We used a Thematic Analysis approach to identify major themes, compared findings, and resolved differences through discussion and consensus. Three dominant themes arose: (1) Adolescents generally encounter more unhealthy peer influences on diet and more healthy peer influences on physical activity; (2) Adolescents endorse youth-led diabetes prevention strategies and describe ideal qualities for peer leaders and methods to support and evaluate leaders; (3) Adolescents prefer text messaging to monitor behaviors, track goals, and receive personalized guidance. Using study findings, our Community Action Board developed a peer-led diabetes prevention program for prediabetic adolescents.

Using Mobile Integrated Health and telehealth to support transitions of care among patients with heart failure (MIGHTy-Heart): protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Nearly one-quarter of patients discharged from the hospital with heart failure (HF) are readmitted within 30 days, placing a significant burden on patients, families and health systems. The objective of the 'Using Mobile Integrated Health and Telehealth to support transitions of care among patients with Heart failure' (MIGHTy-Heart) study is to compare the effectiveness of two postdischarge interventions on healthcare utilisation, patient-reported outcomes and healthcare quality among patients with HF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MIGHTy-Heart study is a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial comparing two interventions demonstrated to improve the hospital to home transition for patients with HF: mobile integrated health (MIH) and transitions of care coordinators (TOCC). The MIH intervention bundles home visits from a community paramedic (CP) with telehealth video visits by emergency medicine physicians to support the management of acute symptoms and postdischarge care coordination. The TOCC intervention consists of follow-up phone calls from a registered nurse within 48-72 hours of discharge to assess a patient's clinical status, identify unmet clinical and social needs and reinforce patient education (eg, medication adherence and lifestyle changes). MIGHTy-Heart is enrolling and randomising (1:1) 2100 patients with HF who are discharged to home following a hospitalisation in two New York City (NY, USA) academic health systems. The coprimary study outcomes are all-cause 30-day hospital readmissions and quality of life measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 30 days after hospital discharge. The secondary endpoints are days at home, preventable emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and patient-reported symptoms. Data sources for the study outcomes include patient surveys, electronic health records and claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants provide written or verbal informed consent prior to randomisation in English, Spanish, French, Mandarin or Russian. Study findings are being disseminated to scientific audiences through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences. This study has been approved by: Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY #20-08-329-380), Weill Cornell Medicine Institutional Review Board (20-08022605) and Mt. Sinai Institutional Review Board (20-01901). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04662541.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine receipt at two integrated healthcare systems in New York City: a cross-sectional study of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine receipt among healthcare workers and the role of vaccine confidence in decisions to vaccinate, and to better understand concerns related to COVID-19 vaccination. DESIGN: Cross-sectional anonymous survey among front-line, support service and administrative healthcare workers. SETTING: Two large integrated healthcare systems (one private and one public) in New York City during the initial roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine. PARTICIPANTS: 1933 healthcare workers, including nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, environmental services staff, researchers and administrative staff. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine receipt during the initial roll-out of the vaccine among healthcare workers. RESULTS: Among 1933 healthcare workers who had been offered the vaccine, 81% had received the vaccine at the time of the survey. Receipt was lower among black (58%; OR: 0.14, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) compared with white (91%) healthcare workers, and higher among non-Hispanic (84%) compared with Hispanic (69%; OR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1) healthcare workers. Among healthcare workers with concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, 65% received the vaccine. Among healthcare workers who agreed with the statement that the vaccine is important to protect family members, 86% were vaccinated. Of those who disagreed, 25% received the vaccine (p<0.001). In a multivariable analysis, concern about being experimented on (OR: 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.6), concern about COVID-19 vaccine safety (OR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55), lack of influenza vaccine receipt (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.44), disagreeing that COVID-19 vaccination is important to protect others (OR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52) and black race (OR: 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.59) were independently associated with COVID-19 vaccine non-receipt. Over 70% of all healthcare workers responded that they had been approached for vaccine advice multiple times by family, community members and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated high overall receipt among healthcare workers. Even among healthcare workers with concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, side effects or being experimented on, over 50% received the vaccine. Attitudes around the importance of COVID-19 vaccination to protect others played a large role in healthcare workers' decisions to vaccinate. We observed striking inequities in COVID-19 vaccine receipt, particularly affecting black and Hispanic workers. Further research is urgently needed to address issues related to vaccine equity and uptake in the context of systemic racism and barriers to care. This is particularly important given the influence healthcare workers have in vaccine decision-making conversations in their communities.

Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing: Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis of a Conceptual Model to Inform Patient-Centered Instrument Development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds. METHODS: We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback. RESULTS: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each. CONCLUSION: We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.

"Not Alone Anymore": The Experiences of Adults With Diabetes in New York's Medicaid Health Home Program.

BACKGROUND: New York State Medicaid's Health Home program is an example of a natural experiment that could affect individuals with diabetes. While evaluations of interventions such as the Health Home program are generally based solely on clinical and administrative data and rarely examine patients' experience, patients may add to the understanding of the intervention's implementation and mechanisms of impact. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to qualitatively examine the health and nonmedical challenges faced by Medicaid-insured patients with diabetes and their experiences with the services provided by New York's Health Homes to address these challenges. RESEARCH DESIGN: We performed 10 focus groups and 23 individual interviews using a guide developed in collaboration with a stakeholder board. We performed a thematic analysis to identify cross-cutting themes. SUBJECTS: A total of 63 Medicaid-insured individuals with diabetes, 31 of whom were enrolled in New York's Health Home program. RESULTS: While participants were not generally familiar with the term "Health Home," they described and appreciated services consistent with Health Home enrollment delivered by care managers. Services addressed challenges in access to care, especially by facilitating and reminding participants about appointments, and nonmedical needs, such as transportation, housing, and help at home. Participants valued their personal relationships with care managers and the psychosocial support they provided. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of its enrollees, the Health Home program primarily addressed access to care, but also addressed material and psychosocial needs. These findings have implications for Health Home entities and for research assessing their impact.

Network Engagement in Action: Stakeholder Engagement Activities to Enhance Patient-centeredness of Research.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholders (ie, patients, policymakers, clinicians, advocacy groups, health system leaders, payers, and others) offer critical input at various stages in the research continuum, and their contributions are increasingly recognized as an important component of effective translational research. Natural experiments, in particular, may benefit from stakeholder feedback in addressing real-world issues and providing insight into future policy decisions, though best practices for the engagement of stakeholders in observational studies are limited in the literature. METHODS: The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) network utilizes rigorous methods to evaluate natural experiments in health policy and program delivery with a focus on diabetes-related outcomes. Each of the 8 partnering institutions incorporates stakeholder engagement throughout multiple study phases to enhance the patient-centeredness of results. NEXT-D2 dedicates a committee to Engagement for resource sharing, enhancing engagement approaches, and advancing network-wide engagement activities. Key stakeholder engagement activities include Study Meetings, Proposal Development, Trainings & Educational Opportunities, Data Analysis, and Results Dissemination. Network-wide patient-centered resources and multimedia have also been developed through the broad expertise of each site's stakeholder group. CONCLUSIONS: This collaboration has created a continuous feedback loop wherein site-level engagement approaches are informed via the network and network-level engagement efforts are shaped by individual sites. Emerging best practices include: incorporating stakeholders in multiple ways throughout the research, building on previous relationships with stakeholders, enhancing capacity through stakeholder and investigator training, involving stakeholders in refining outcome choices and understanding the meaning of variables, and recognizing the power of stakeholders in maximizing dissemination.

A Tale of 2 Constituencies: Exploring Patient and Clinician Perspectives in the Age of Big Data.

BACKGROUND: Patient and clinician stakeholders are inadequately engaged in key aspects of research, particularly regarding use of Big Data to study and improve patient-centered outcomes. Little is known about the attitudes, interests, and concerns of stakeholders regarding such data. RESEARCH DESIGN: The New York City Clinical Data Research Network (NYC-CDRN), a collaboration of research, clinical, and community leaders built a deidentified dataset containing electronic health records from millions of New Yorkers. Guided by a patient-clinician advisory board, we developed a question guide to explore patient and clinician experiences and ideas about research using large datasets. Trained facilitators led discussions during preexisting patient, community, and clinician group meetings. The research team coded meeting notes and identified themes. RESULTS: Fully 272 individuals participated in 19 listening sessions (139 patients/advocates, 133 clinicians) at 6 medical centers with diverse NYC communities: 76% were female and 63% were nonwhite. Clinicians and patients agreed on all major themes including the central role of clinicians in introducing patients to research and the need for public campaigns to inform stakeholders about Big Data. Stakeholders were interested in using granular data to compare the care and clinical outcomes of their neighborhoods with others across NYC, but were also concerned that data could not truly be deidentified. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients agree on potential benefits of stakeholder-engaged Big Data research and provided suggestions for further research and building stakeholder research capacity. This evaluation demonstrated the potential of brief meetings with existing patient and clinical groups to explore barriers and facilitators to patient and clinician engagement.

A Culture of Understanding: Reflections and Suggestions from a Genomics Research Community Board.

There has been limited community engagement in the burgeoning field of genomics research. In the wake of a new discovery of genetic variants that increase the risk of kidney failure and are almost unique to people of African ancestry, community and clinical leaders in Harlem, New York, formed a community board to inform the direction of related research. The board advised all aspects of a study to assess the impact of testing for these genetic variants at primary care sites that serve diverse populations, including explaining genetic risk to participants. By reflecting on the board's experiences, we found that community voices can have tangible impact on research that navigates the controversial intersection of race, ancestry, and genomics by heightening vigilance, fostering clear communication between researchers and the community, and encouraging researchers to cede some control. Our reflections and work provide a strong justification for longitudinal community partnerships in genomics research.

Accelerators: Sparking Innovation and Transdisciplinary Team Science in Disparities Research.

Development and implementation of effective, sustainable, and scalable interventions that advance equity could be propelled by innovative and inclusive partnerships. Readied catalytic frameworks that foster communication, collaboration, a shared vision, and transformative translational research across scientific and non-scientific divides are needed to foster rapid generation of novel solutions to address and ultimately eliminate disparities. To achieve this, we transformed and expanded a community-academic board into a translational science board with members from public, academic and private sectors. Rooted in team science, diverse board experts formed topic-specific "accelerators", tasked with collaborating to rapidly generate new ideas, questions, approaches, and projects comprising patients, advocates, clinicians, researchers, funders, public health and industry leaders. We began with four accelerators-digital health, big data, genomics and environmental health-and were rapidly able to respond to funding opportunities, transform new ideas into clinical and community programs, generate new, accessible, actionable data, and more efficiently and effectively conduct research. This innovative model has the power to maximize research quality and efficiency, improve patient care and engagement, optimize data democratization and dissemination among target populations, contribute to policy, and lead to systems changes needed to address the root causes of disparities.

Recruitment in Clinical Versus Community-Based Sites for a Pilot Youth Diabetes Prevention Program, East Harlem, New York, 2011-2012.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about successful strategies for recruitment of youth for research. The objective of this study was to compare clinical sites with community sites in the recruitment of teenagers for a new youth diabetes prevention program in East Harlem, New York. METHODS: We assessed diabetes risk for youth (aged 13-19 y) by measuring body mass index (BMI). We then screened overweight and obese youth for prediabetes using oral glucose tolerance testing, had them complete a health and lifestyle survey, and enrolled prediabetic youth into peer-led workshops. The recruitment strategies were 1) clinical referrals and 2) screenings at community sites. We compared the number of adolescents screened, the proportion eligible for testing, the proportion diagnosed with prediabetes, baseline characteristics, and the retention rates between those recruited in clinical and community sites. RESULTS: In 3 months, we completed BMI screening for 156 adolescents from community sites and 30 from clinical sites. Overall, 47% were at risk for diabetes on the basis of BMI, and 63% returned for diabetes testing; 35% had prediabetes, and 1 teenager had diabetes. Clinical sites yielded higher rates of diabetes risk on the basis of BMI and higher rates of return for screening and diagnosed prediabetes. Although demographics and BMI did not vary by recruitment site, we found differences in behaviors, self-efficacy, body image, and social support. There were no differences by recruitment site in workshop enrollment or completion or return for follow-up. CONCLUSION: Both recruitment strategies were successful, and participants from both groups had high rates of undiagnosed prediabetes. Our approach allowed access to more adolescents and opportunities for education about diabetes in the community.

Community capacity building: a collaborative approach to designing a training and education model.

BACKGROUND: Successful community-academic research partnerships require building the capacity of both community-based organizations (CBOs) and academics to conduct collaborative research of mutual interest and benefit. Yet, information about the needs and goals of research-interested CBOs is lacking. Our partnership aimed to conduct a community research needs assessment and to use results to develop future capacity-building programs for CBOs. METHODS: Based on our review of the literature, informal interviews with research-interested CBOs and community-engaged research groups locally and nationally, we developed a needs assessment survey. Key domains of this survey included history and experience with research collaboration, interest in specific research topics, and preference for learning format and structure. We trained community health workers (CHWs) to recruit senior leaders from CBOs in New York City (NYC) and encourage them to complete an on-line survey. RESULTS: Fully 54% (33/61) of CBOs completed the needs assessment. Most (69%) reported involvement with research or evaluation in the last 2 years and 33% had some funding for research. Although 75% had collaborated with academic institutions in the past, 58% did not rate this experience well. The four areas respondents prioritized for skills building were program evaluation, developing needs assessments, building surveys, and understanding statistical analyses. They were less interested in learning to build collaborations with academics. CONCLUSIONS: A formal needs assessment of research training and educational needs of CBOs revealed that most had experience, albeit negative, with academic collaborations. CBO leaders wanted to build skills to conduct and analyze assessments and program evaluations. Our community-academic partnership is using these findings to develop a research capacity-building course. Other partnerships should consider conducting such assessments to transform the capacity of CBOs to be active research partners and leaders.

Shared governance in building community capacity: A case study of sleep apnea.

East Harlem has the highest diabetes mortality rate in New York City, NY. Using Community Based Participatory Research principles, the East Harlem Partnership for Diabetes Prevention-a community- academic partnership-formed to build community capacity with a goal to address health disparities in East Harlem. As part of prevention efforts, community partners chose to study the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea and its relationship to pre-diabetes and progression to diabetes. However, community partners insisted any study of sleep apnea go beyond simple assessment to ensure the largely uninsured, minority population enrolled also have access to state of the art diagnosis and treatment. Through compromise and collaboration, the partnership developed a culturally appropriate and scientifically rigorous method to diagnose and treat sleep apnea as part of a novel research program.

Effectively translating diabetes prevention: a successful model in a historically underserved community.

Lifestyle interventions can prevent diabetes through weight loss, but they are rarely translated for use in underserved communities. The aim of this study was to describe how a community-academic partnership formed and developed a program to address local health disparities by developing a low-cost, culturally and economically appropriate, peer-led community-based diabetes prevention program. Using a participatory approach, the partnership chose to focus on diabetes prevention, and co-developed all intervention, recruitment, research, and evaluation strategies. The partnership's philosophy to maintain high clinical and scientific standards paired with their ability to represent and engage the community facilitated the development of a randomized controlled trial that achieved statistically significant and sustained weight loss, and the recruitment of a largely Spanish-speaking, low income, uninsured population. The success of this intervention lies in the partnership's commitment to the community, co-ownership of research, and a careful balance between academic rigor and community engagement and relevance.

Results of a pilot diabetes prevention intervention in East Harlem, New York City: Project HEED.

OBJECTIVES: Our community-academic partnership employed community-based participatory research to develop and pilot a simple, peer-led intervention to promote weight loss, which can prevent diabetes and eliminate racial/ethnic disparities in incident diabetes among overweight adults with prediabetes. METHODS: We recruited overweight adults at community sites, performed oral glucose tolerance testing to identify persons with blood glucose levels in the prediabetes range, and randomized eligible people to a peer-led lifestyle intervention group or delayed intervention in 1 year. Outcomes, including weight, blood pressure, and health behaviors, were measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: More than half of those tested (56%, or 99 of 178) had prediabetes and enrolled in the study. Participants were predominantly Spanish-speaking, low-income, undereducated women. The intervention group lost significantly more weight than the control group and maintained weight loss at 12 months (7.2 versus 2.4 pounds; P < .01). One fourth (24 of 99) of participants progressed to diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In underserved minority communities, prediabetes prevalence may be higher than previously reported. Low-cost, community-based interventions can succeed in encouraging weight loss to prevent diabetes.