SLIMMER: a randomised controlled trial of diabetes prevention in Dutch primary health care: design and methods for process, effect, and economic evaluation

BMC Public Health

Edith JM Feskens¹  Gerrit J Hiddink²  Josien ter Beek³  Sophia C Jansen³  Annemien Haveman-Nies³  Geerke Duijzer¹ 

[1] Division of Human Nutrition; Academic Collaborative Centre AGORA, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8129, 6700 VE Wageningen, the Netherlands;Strategic Communication, Sub-department Communication, Philosophy and Technology: Centre for Integrative Development, Social Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, the Netherlands;GGD Noord- en Oost-Gelderland (Community Health Service), P.O. Box 51, 7311 AB Apeldoorn, the Netherlands

关键词: Evaluation design;    Real-life setting;    Primary health care;    Combined lifestyle intervention;    Prevention;    Type 2 diabetes mellitus;   

Others  :  1129396
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-602

 received in 2014-05-19, accepted in 2014-05-23,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Implementation of interventions in real-life settings requires a comprehensive evaluation approach. The aim of this article is to describe the evaluation design of the SLIMMER diabetes prevention intervention in a Dutch real-life setting.

Methods/Design

The SLIMMER study is a randomised, controlled intervention study including subjects aged 40 through 70 years with impaired fasting glucose or high risk of diabetes. The 10-month SLIMMER intervention involves a dietary and physical activity intervention, including case management and a maintenance programme. The control group receives usual health care and written information about a healthy lifestyle. A logic model of change is composed to link intervention activities with intervention outcomes in a logical order. Primary outcome is fasting insulin. Measurements are performed at baseline and after 12 and 18 months and cover quality of life, cardio-metabolic risk factors (e.g. glucose tolerance, serum lipids, body fatness, and blood pressure), eating and physical activity behaviour, and behavioural determinants. A process evaluation gives insight in how the intervention was delivered and received by participants and health care professionals. The economic evaluation consists of a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis. Costs are assessed from both a societal and health care perspective.

Discussion

This study is expected to provide insight in the effectiveness, including its cost-effectiveness, and delivery of the SLIMMER diabetes prevention intervention conducted in Dutch primary health care. Results of this study provide valuable information for primary health care professionals, researchers, and policy makers.

Trial registration

The SLIMMER study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02094911) since March 19, 2014.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Duijzer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas sixth edition. 2013.
• [2]Yoon U, Kwok LL, Magkidis A: Efficacy of lifestyle interventions in reducing diabetes incidence in patients with impaired glucose tolerance: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Metab Clin Exp 2013, 62(2):303-314.
• [3]Diabetes Prevention Program Research G: 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet 2009, 374(9702):1677-1686.
• [4]Lindstrom J, Ilanne-Parikka P, Peltonen M, Aunola S, Eriksson JG, Hemio K, Hamalainen H, Harkonen P, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S, Laakso M, Louheranta A, Mannelin M, Paturi M, Sundvall J, Valle TT, Uusitupa M, Tuomilehto J: Sustained reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention: follow-up of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. Lancet 2006, 368(9548):1673-1679.
• [5]Roumen C, Corpeleijn E, Feskens EJM, Mensink M, Saris WHM, Blaak EE: Impact of 3-year lifestyle intervention on postprandial glucose metabolism: The SLIM study. Diabet Med 2008, 25(5):597-605.
• [6]Garfield SA, Malozowski S, Chin MH, Narayan KMV, Glasgow RE, Green LW, Hiss RG, Krumholz HM: Considerations for diabetes translational research in real-world settings. Diabetes Care 2003, 26(9):2670-2674.
• [7]Johnson M, Jones R, Freeman C, Woods HB, Gillett M, Goyder E, Payne N: Can diabetes prevention programmes be translated effectively into real-world settings and still deliver improved outcomes? A synthesis of evidence. Diabet Med 2013, 30(1):3-15.
• [8]Cardona-Morrell M, Rychetnik L, Morrell SL, Espinel PT, Bauman A: Reduction of diabetes risk in routine clinical practice: Are physical activity and nutrition interventions feasible and are the outcomes from reference trials replicable? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:653. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Kahn R, Davidson MB: The reality of type 2 diabetes prevention. Diabetes Care 2014, 37(4):943-949.
• [10]Dunkley AJ, Bodicoat DH, Greaves CJ, Russell C, Yates T, Davies MJ, Khunti K: Diabetes prevention in the real world: Effectiveness of pragmatic lifestyle interventions for the prevention of type 2 diabetes and of the impact of adherence to guideline recommendations - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2014, 37(4):922-933.
• [11]O'Hara BJ, Bauman AE, Eakin EG, King L, Haas M, Allman-Farinelli M, Owen N, Cardona-Morell M, Farrell L, Milat AJ, Phongsavan P: Evaluation Framework for Translational Research: Case Study of Australia’s Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service®. Health Promot Pract 2013, 14(3):380-389.
• [12]Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A: Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002, 56(2):119-127.
• [13]Greaves CJ, Sheppard KE, Abraham C, Hardeman W, Roden M, Evans PH, Schwarz P: Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness in dietary and physical activity interventions. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:119. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Vermunt PWA, Milder IEJ, Wielaard F, De Vries JHM, Baan CA, Van Oers JAM, Westert GP: A lifestyle intervention to reduce Type 2 diabetes risk in Dutch primary care: 2.5-year results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med 2012, 29(8):e223-e231.
• [15]Lakerveld J, Bot SD, Chinapaw MJ, Van Tulder MW, Kostense PJ, Dekker JM, Nijpels G: Motivational interviewing and problem solving treatment to reduce type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk in real life: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013, 10:47. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Jansen H, Den Engelsen C, Rutten GEHM: Physical activity in patients with metabolic syndrome: At screening and three years thereafter. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2013, 11(3):163-168.
• [17]Admiraal WM, Vlaar EM, Nierkens V, Holleman F, Middelkoop BJC, Stronks K, Van Valkengoed IGM: Intensive Lifestyle Intervention in General Practice to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes among 18 to 60-Year-Old South Asians: 1-Year Effects on the Weight Status and Metabolic Profile of Participants in a Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:7.
• [18]Jansen SC, Haveman-Nies A, Duijzer G, Ter Beek J, Hiddink GJ, Feskens EJ: Adapting the SLIM diabetes prevention intervention to a Dutch real-life setting: Joint decision making by science and practice. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Duijzer G, Haveman-Nies A, Jansen SC, Ter Beek J, Hiddink GJ, Feskens EJM: Feasibility and potential impact of the adapted SLIM diabetes prevention intervention in a Dutch real-life setting: the SLIMMER pilot study. Patient Education and Counseling 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.024 webcite
• [20]Bartholomew LK, Mullen PD: Five roles for using theory and evidence in the design and testing of behavior change interventions. J Publ Health Dent 2011, 71(SUPPL. 1):S20-S33.
• [21]Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M: From Theory to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques. Appl Psychol 2008, 57(4):660-680.
• [22]Mensink M, Feskens EJM, Saris WHM, De Bruin TWA, Blaak EE: Study on lifestyle intervention and impaired glucose tolerance Maastricht (SLIM): Preliminary results after one year. Int J Obes 2003, 27(3):377-384.
• [23]Littenberg B, MacLean CD: Intra-cluster correlation coefficients in adults with diabetes in primary care practices: The Vermont Diabetes Information System field survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]World Health Organization: Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycemia: report of a WHO/IDF consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.
• [25]De Weerdt I, Kuipers B, Kok G: ‘Kijk op diabetes’ met perspectief voor de toekomst. Eindverslag van de eerste fase. In. Amersfoort: Nederlandse Diabetes Federatie; 2007.
• [26]Prochaska JO, Velicer WF: The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. AM J HEALTH PROMOT 1997, 12(1):38-48.
• [27]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991, 50(2):179-211.
• [28]Miller WR, Rollnick S: Motivational interviewing: preparing people to change addictive behaviour. New York: Guilford Press; 1991.
• [29]Health Council of the Netherlands: Guidelines for a healthy diet 2006. publication no. 2006/21E. The Hague 2006.
• [30]Praet SFE, Van Uden C, Hartgens F, Savelberg HHCM, Toereppel K, De Bie RA: KNGF-standaard Beweeginterventie diabetes mellitus type 2 [Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy’s guidelines on physical activity intervention type 2 diabetes mellitus]. Amersfoort: Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie 2009.
• [31]Lokale en nationale monitor gezondheid - Indicatoren voor de monitor volksgezondheid [Local and national monitor health - Indicators for the monitor public health] https://www.monitorgezondheid.nl/volksindicatoren.aspx webcite
• [32]Du H, Van Der ADL, Van Bakel MME, Van Der Kallen CJH, Blaak EE, Van Greevenbroek MMJ, Jansen EHJM, Nijpels G, Stehouwer CDA, Dekker JM, Feskens EJM: Glycemic index and glycemic load in relation to food and nutrient intake and metabolic risk factors in a Dutch population. Am J Clin Nutr 2008, 87(3):655-661.
• [33]Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PDA, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, Sprangers MAG, Te Velde A, Verrips E: Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51(11):1055-1068.
• [34]Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30(6):473-483.
• [35]Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, Naylor BA, Treacher DF, Turner RC: Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and β-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 1985, 28(7):412-419.
• [36]Crapo RO, Casaburi R, Coates AL, Enright PL, MacIntyre NR, McKay RT, Johnson D, Wanger JS, Zeballos RJ, Bittner V, Mottram C: ATS statement: Guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002, 166(1):111-117.
• [37]Du H, Newton PJ, Salamonson Y, Carrieri-Kohlman VL, Davidson PM: A review of the six-minute walk test: Its implication as a self-administered assessment tool. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2009, 8(1):2-8.
• [38]Borg GAV: Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. MED SCI SPORTS EXERC 1982, 14(5):377-381.
• [39]De Groot LCPGM, Van Staveren WA: Nutrition and the elderly. In A European collaborative study in cooperation with the World Health Organization Special Programme for Research on Aging (WHO-SPRA) and the International Union of Nutritional Sciences (IUNS), Committee on Geriatric Nutrition. Manual of Operations, Euronut Report 11. Wageningen, the Netherlands: EURONUT; 1988.
• [40]Streppel MT, De Vries JH, Meijboom S, Beekman M, De Craen AJ, Slagboom PE, Feskens EJ: Relative validity of the food frequency questionnaire used to assess dietary intake in the Leiden Longevity Study. Nutr J 2013, 12:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [41]Siebelink E, Geelen A, De Vries JHM: Self-reported energy intake by FFQ compared with actual energy intake to maintain body weight in 516 adults. Br J Nutr 2011, 106(2):274-281.
• [42]Stichting NEVO: Dutch food composition table 2006. The Hague: Netherlands Nutrition Centre 2006.
• [43]Food-based dietary guidelines [Richtlijnen Voedselkeuze] http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/Assets/Uploads/Documents/Voedingsvoorlichters/Richtlijnen_voedselkeuze_2011.pdf webcite
• [44]Wendel-Vos GCW, Schuit AJ, Saris WHM, Kromhout D: Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56(12):1163-1169.
• [45]De Hollander EL, Zwart L, De Vries SI, Wendel-Vos W: The SQUASH was a more valid tool than the OBiN for categorizing adults according to the Dutch physical activity and the combined guideline. J Clin Epidemiol 2012, 65(1):73-81.
• [46]Chinapaw MJM, Slootmaker SM, Schuit AJ, Van Zuidam M, Van Mechelen W: Reliability and validity of the activity questionnaire for adults and adolescents (AQuAA). BMC Med Res Methodol 2009, 9:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [47]Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S: Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 2012, 7:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [48]Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A: Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005, 14(1):26-33.
• [49]Fishbein M, Ajzen I: Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press; 2010.
• [50]Lakerveld J, Bot SDM, Chinapaw MJM, Knol DL, De Vet HCW, Nijpels G: Measuring pathways towards a healthier lifestyle in the Hoorn Prevention Study: The Determinants of Lifestyle Behavior Questionnaire (DLBQ). Patient Educ Couns 2011, 85(2):e53-e58.
• [51]Helmink JHM, Van Boekel LC, Kremers SJP: Pilot Beweegkuur overweight and obesity. Results of a follow-up measurement of participants. In Pilot BeweegKuur overgewicht & obesitas. Resultaten van een follow-up meting onder deelnemers. Maastricht: Universiteit Maastricht; 2010.
• [52]Steckler A, Linnan L: Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002.
• [53]Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P: Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract 2005, 6(2):134-147.
• [54]Nutbeam D: Evaluating health promotion - progress, problems and solutions. Health Promot Int 1998, 13(1):27-44.
• [55]Wang S, Moss JR, Hiller JE: Applicability and transferability of interventions in evidence-based public health. Health Promot Int 2006, 21(1):76-83. Epub 2005 Oct 2025
• [56]Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002, 21(2):271-292.
• [57]Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K: Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51(11):1115-1128.
• [58]Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM: Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek. Methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Geactualiseerde versie 2010. Diemen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen 2010.
• [59]Tan SS, Bouwmans CAM, Rutten FFH, Hakkaart-Van Roijen L: Update of the dutch manual for costing in economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012, 28(2):152-158.
• [60]Thomas DR: A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 2006, 27(2):237-246.