902-P: Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Diabetes Prevention Program in Adults at High Risk of Developing Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review aimed to establish a specific evidence-base of diabetes prevention programs for adults at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) based on either the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) or the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS). Methods: The bibliographic databases: Medline, Ovid, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Joanna Brigg Institute Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and grey literature were searched for published articles in the English language from January 1996 to December 2018. This review included only RCTs conducted in community settings focusing on adults at high risk of T2D, utilizing an intervention based on either the DPP or DPS and measuring the incidence of T2D as an outcome. Results: Of 4,964 identified records, eight studies met all inclusion criteria and were suitable for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed positive effects of programs based on either DPP or DPS on prevention T2D in adults at high risk. The pooled incidence rate of T2D in the intervention group was 47% lower than those in the control group (95% CI 9%, 69%). Attending lifestyle change program achieved a pooled mean weight loss of 2.10 kg (95% CI -3.45, -0.74) which was significantly higher than those of the control group. Data in physical activity, dietary and HbA1c were not commonly reported. Although the feasibility of the prevention program was established, this review found a lack of data in enablers and barriers in implementing a diabetes prevention program. Conclusion: The effectiveness of T2D prevention program based on either the DPP or DPS delivered in community settings is evidenced, and the reduction in cumulative incidence of T2D was reported. Nonetheless, further research on enables and barriers associated with increasing physical activity and improving healthy eating is warranted to help sustain the optimal outcomes of the pragmatic diabetes prevention program. Disclosure K.H. Wechkunanukul: None. F. Benton: None. J. McGill: None. S. Ullah: None.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".