Christie Rosputni1, Eliza Short2, Martina Rahim-Sepulveda2, Carol L Howe3, Vanessa da Silva2,4, Karen Alvarez2, Melanie D Hingle5. 1. Department of Physiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 2. Department of Nutritional Sciences, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, The University of Arizona, 1177 E 4th Street, Shantz Building Room 328, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. 3. Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Arizona Cooperative Extension, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 5. Department of Nutritional Sciences, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, The University of Arizona, 1177 E 4th Street, Shantz Building Room 328, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. hinglem@email.arizona.edu.
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of this systematic scoping review were to characterize the extent to which diabetes prevention programs have focused on rural populations in North America and where possible, identify efficacious program components. METHODS: The review was guided by the PRISMA statement and five steps for scoping studies. Searches were conducted in August 2017 in Tucson, Arizona. Two teams of three independently screened full texts, excluding prior reviews, systematic reviews, and opinion pieces. Two authors abstracted data, which were reviewed by other team members. RESULTS: Of the 12,840 articles identified, 12 met all criteria. Nine studies were based in the USA and three were Canadian. Demographics reflected high enrollment of underrepresented minorities, adults, and females. Methodological rigor was low; most studies were single-arm interventions evaluated using pre-/post-measures. Weight was measured across all studies, although biological, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes were inconsistently assessed. Eight studies reported significant changes in primary outcomes. Duration and intensity were variable; delivery was led by trained volunteers or health professionals. Seven studies reported recruitment, retention, and adherence data. CONCLUSIONS: Surprisingly, few rural diabetes prevention studies have been published. Published programs were notable for lack of youth and/or family involvement, integrated prevention and treatment programs, and heavy reliance on self-reported outcomes.
AIMS: The aims of this systematic scoping review were to characterize the extent to which diabetes prevention programs have focused on rural populations in North America and where possible, identify efficacious program components. METHODS: The review was guided by the PRISMA statement and five steps for scoping studies. Searches were conducted in August 2017 in Tucson, Arizona. Two teams of three independently screened full texts, excluding prior reviews, systematic reviews, and opinion pieces. Two authors abstracted data, which were reviewed by other team members. RESULTS: Of the 12,840 articles identified, 12 met all criteria. Nine studies were based in the USA and three were Canadian. Demographics reflected high enrollment of underrepresented minorities, adults, and females. Methodological rigor was low; most studies were single-arm interventions evaluated using pre-/post-measures. Weight was measured across all studies, although biological, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes were inconsistently assessed. Eight studies reported significant changes in primary outcomes. Duration and intensity were variable; delivery was led by trained volunteers or health professionals. Seven studies reported recruitment, retention, and adherence data. CONCLUSIONS: Surprisingly, few rural diabetes prevention studies have been published. Published programs were notable for lack of youth and/or family involvement, integrated prevention and treatment programs, and heavy reliance on self-reported outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community interventions; Diabetes prevention; Remote communities; Rural health
Authors: Jaana Lindström; Pirjo Ilanne-Parikka; Markku Peltonen; Sirkka Aunola; Johan G Eriksson; Katri Hemiö; Helena Hämäläinen; Pirjo Härkönen; Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi; Mauri Laakso; Anne Louheranta; Marjo Mannelin; Merja Paturi; Jouko Sundvall; Timo T Valle; Matti Uusitupa; Jaakko Tuomilehto Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-11-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William C Knowler; Sarah E Fowler; Richard F Hamman; Costas A Christophi; Heather J Hoffman; Anne T Brenneman; Janet O Brown-Friday; Ronald Goldberg; Elizabeth Venditti; David M Nathan Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 79.321