Adapting the SLIM diabetes prevention intervention to a Dutch real-life setting: joint decision making by science and practice

BMC Public Health

Edith JM Feskens³  Gerrit J Hiddink²  Josien Ter Beek¹  Geerke Duijzer³  Annemien Haveman-Nies³  Sophia C Jansen¹ 

[1] Community Health Service GGD Gelre-IJssel; Academic Collaborative Centre AGORA, GGD Gelre-IJssel, PO Box 51, 7300, AB, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands;Department of Social Sciences, Sub Department of Communication Sciences, Communication Strategies, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands;Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University; Academic Collaborative Centre AGORA, AGORA, The Netherlands

关键词: Adaptation;    Practice;    Real-life setting;    Evidence-based;    Decision making;    Prevention;    Diabetes;   

Others  :  1162224
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-457

 received in 2012-07-11, accepted in 2013-04-30,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although many evidence-based diabetes prevention interventions exist, they are not easily applicable in real-life settings. Moreover, there is a lack of examples which describe the adaptation process of these interventions to practice. In this paper we present an example of such an adaptation. We adapted the SLIM (Study on Lifestyle intervention and Impaired glucose tolerance Maastricht) diabetes prevention intervention to a Dutch real-life setting, in a joint decision making process of intervention developers and local health care professionals.

Methods

We used 3 adaptation steps in accordance with current adaptation frameworks. In the first step, the elements of the SLIM intervention were identified. In the second step, these elements were judged for their applicability in a real-life setting. In the third step, adaptations were proposed and discussed for those elements which were deemed not applicable. Participants invited for this process included intervention developers and local health care professionals (n=19).

Results

In the first adaptation step, a total of 22 intervention elements were identified. In the second step, 12 of these 22 intervention elements were judged as inapplicable. In the third step, a consensus was achieved for the adaptations of all 12 elements. The adapted elements were in the following categories: target population, techniques, intensity, delivery mode, materials, organisational structure, and political and financial conditions. The adaptations either lay in changing the SLIM protocol (6 elements) or the real-life working procedures (1 element), or a combination of both (4 elements).

Conclusions

The positive result of this study is that a consensus was achieved within a relatively short time period (nine months) between the developers of the SLIM intervention and local health care professionals on the adaptations needed to make SLIM applicable in a Dutch real-life setting. Our example shows that it is possible to combine the perspectives of scientists and practitioners, and to find a balance between evidence-base and applicability concerns.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Jansen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lindström J, Ilanne-Parikka P, Peltonen M, Aunola S, Eriksson JG, Hemiö K, Hämäläinen H, Härkönen P, Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S, Laakso M, Louheranta A, Mannelin M, Paturi M, Sundvall J, Valle TT, Uusitupa M, Tuomilehto J: Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group: Sustained reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention: follow-up of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. Lancet 2006, 368:1673-1679.
• [2]Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, Nathan DM: Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group: Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. Engl J Med 2002, 346:393-403.
• [3]Mensink M, Corpeleijn E, Feskens EJ: Study on lifestyle-intervention and impaired glucose tolerance Maastricht (SLIM): design and screening results. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2003, 61:49-58.
• [4]Roumen C, Blaak EE, Corpeleijn E: Lifestyle intervention for prevention of diabetes: determinants of success for future implementation. Nutr Rev 2009, 67:132-146.
• [5]Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC: Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health 2003, 93:1261-1267.
• [6]Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:1322-1327.
• [7]Greaves CJ, Sheppard KE, Abraham C, Hardeman W, Roden M, Evans PH: Schwarz P; the IMAGE study group: Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness in dietary and physical activity interventions. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:119.
• [8]Dane AV, Schneider BH: Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev 1998, 18:23-45.
• [9]Ringwalt CL, Ennett S, Johnson R, Rohrbach LA, Simons-Rudolph A, Vincus A, Thorne J: Factors associated with fidelity to substance use prevention curriculum guides in the nation's middle schools. Health Educ Behav 2003, 3:375-391.
• [10]Castro FG, Barrera M, Martinez CR: The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prev Sci 2004, 5:41-45.
• [11]Elliot DS, Mihalic S: Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prev Sci 2004, 5:47-53.
• [12]Botvin GJ: Advancing prevention science and practice: challenges, critical issues, and future directions. Prev Sci 2004, 5:69-72.
• [13]Lee SJ, Altschul I, Mowbray CT: Using planned adaptation to implement evidence-based programs with new populations. Am J Comm Psychology 2008, 41:290-303.
• [14]McKleroy VS, Galbraith JS, Cummings B, Jones P, Harshbarger C, Collins C, Gelaude D, Carey JW, the ADAPT team: Adapting evidence-based behavioural interventions for new settings and target populations. AIDS Educ Prev 2006, 18:59-73.
• [15]Backer TE: Finding the balance: Program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention: a state-of-the-art review. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention: Rockville, MD; 2001.
• [16]Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 1995.
• [17]Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, Noonan R, Lubell K, Stillman L, Blachman M, Dunville R, Saul J: Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Comm Psychology 2008, 41:171-181.
• [18]Bartholomew LK, Leerlooijer J, James S, Reinders J, Mullen PD: Using intervention mapping to adapt evidence-based programs to new settings and populations. In Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. 3rd edition. Edited by Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Fernandez ME. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011:553-632.
• [19]Saaristo T, Moilanen L, Korpi-Hyovalti E, Vanhala M, Saltevo J, Niskanen L, Jokelainen J, Peltonen M, Oksa M, Tuomilehto J, Uusitupa M, Keinanen-Kiukkaanniemi S: Lifestyle intervention for prevention of type 2 diabetes in primary health care: one-year follow-up of the Finnish National Diabetes Prevention Program (FIN-D2D). Diabetes Care 2010, 33:2146-2151.
• [20]Lindstrom J, Absetz P, Hemio K, Peltomaki P, Peltonen M: Reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes with nutrition and physical activity—efficacy and implementation of lifestyle interventions in Finland. Public Health Nutr 2010, 13:993-999.
• [21]Absetz P, Oldenburg B, Hankonen N, Valve R, Heinonen H, Nissinen A, Fogelholm M, Talja M, Uutela A: Type 2 diabetes prevention in the real world: three-year results of the GOAL lifestyle implementation trial. Diabetes Care 2009, 32:1418-1420.
• [22]Laatikainen T, Dunbar JA, Chapman A, Kilkkinen A, Vartiainen E, Heistaro S, Philpot B, Absetz P, Bunker S, O'Neil A, Reddy P, Best JD, Janus ED: Prevention of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention in an Australian primary health care setting: Greater Green Triangle (GGT) Diabetes Prevention project. BMC Public Health 2007, 7:249.
• [23]Jackson L: Translating the diabetes prevention program into practice: A review of community interventions. Diabetes Educ 2009, 35:309-320.
• [24]Kramer MK, Kriska AM, Venditti EM, Miller RG, Brooks MM, Burke LE, Siminerio LM, Solano FX, Orchard TJ: Translating the Diabetes Prevention Program A Comprehensive Model for Prevention Training and Program Delivery. Am J Prev Med 2009, 37:505-511.
• [25]McTigue KM, Conroy MB, Hess R, Bryce CL, Fiorillo AB, Fischer GS, Milas NC, Simkin-Silverman LR: Using the internet to translate an evidence-based lifestyle intervention into practice. Telemedicine and e-health 2009, 15:851-858.
• [26]Vadheim LM, Brewer KA, Kassner DR, Vanderwood KK, Hall TO, Butcher MK, Helgerson SD, Harwell TS: Effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention program among persons at high risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in a rural community. J Rural Health 2010, 26:266-272.
• [27]DePue JD, Rosen RK, Batts-Turner M, Bereolos N, House M, Held RF, Nu’usolia O, Tuitele J, Goldstein MG, McGarvey ST: Cultural translation of interventions: diabetes care in american samoa. Am J Public Health 2010, 100:2085-2093.
• [28]Penn L, Lordon J, Lowry R, Mathers J, Smith W, Walker M, White M: Towards the translation of research evidence to service provision: experience from North East England, UK. In Diabetes prevention in practice. Edited by Schwarz P, Reddy P, Greaves C, Dunbar JA, Schwarz J. Dresden: TUMAINI Institute; 2010.
• [29]Rutten GEHM, Grauw DE, Nijpels G WJC: NHG Standaard diabetes mellitus type 2. Huisarts Wet 2006, 49:137-152.
• [30]Ministry of Health: Welfare and Sports. The Hage, the Netherlands: Choosing a healthy lifestyle; 2006.
• [31]Michie S, Ashford S, Sniehotta FF, Dombrowski SU, Bishop A, French DP: A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: The CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychology and Health 2011, 26:1479-1498.