Medicine (Western Health) - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5
-
ItemThe Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial(BMC, 2013-01-31)BACKGROUND: Worldwide, type 2 diabetes (T2DM) prevalence has more than doubled over two decades. In Australia, diabetes is the second highest contributor to the burden of disease. Lifestyle modification programs comprising diet changes, weight loss and moderate physical activity, have been proven to reduce the incidence of T2DM in high risk individuals.As part of the Council of Australia Governments, the State of Victoria committed to develop and support the diabetes prevention program 'Life! Taking action on diabetes' (Life!) which has direct lineage from effective clinical and implementation trials from Finland and Australia. The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS) has been set up to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a specific version of the Life! program. METHODS/DESIGN: We intend to recruit 796 participants for this open randomized clinical trial; 398 will be allocated to the intervention arm and 398 to the usual care arm. Several methods of recruitment will be used in order to maximize the number of participants. Individuals aged 50 to 75 years will be screened with a risk tool (AUSDRISK) to detect those at high risk of developing T2DM. Those with existing diabetes will be excluded. Intervention participants will undergo anthropometric and laboratory tests, and comprehensive surveys at baseline, following the fourth group session (approximately three months after the commencement of the intervention) and 12 months after commencement of the intervention, while control participants will undergo testing at baseline and 12 months only.The intervention consists of an initial individual session followed by a series of five structured-group sessions. The first four group sessions will be carried out at two week intervals and the fifth session will occur eight months after the first group session. The intervention is based on the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model and sessions will empower and enable the participants to follow the five goals of the Life! program. DISCUSSION: This study will determine whether the effect of this intervention is larger than the effect of usual care in reducing central obesity and cardiovascular risk factors and thus the risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Also it will evaluate how these two options compare economically. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000507280.
-
ItemImplementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne diabetes prevention study(BMC, 2012-09-19)BACKGROUND: Many public health interventions based on apparently sound evidence from randomised controlled trials encounter difficulties when being scaled up within health systems. Even under the best of circumstances, implementation is exceedingly difficult. In this paper we will describe the implementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study, which is a randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness nested in the state-wide Life! Taking Action on Diabetes program in Victoria, Australia. DISCUSSION: The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study sits within an evolving larger scale implementation project, the Life! program. Changes that occurred during the roll-out of that program had a direct impact on the process of conducting this trial. The issues and methods of recovery the study team encountered were conceptualised using an implementation salvage strategies framework. The specific issues the study team came across included continuity of the state funding for Life! program and structural changes to the Life! program which consisted of adjustments to eligibility criteria, referral processes, structure and content, as well as alternative program delivery for different population groups. Staff turnover, recruitment problems, setting and venue concerns, availability of potential participants and participant characteristics were also identified as evaluation roadblocks. Each issue and corresponding salvage strategy is presented. SUMMARY: The experiences of conducting such a novel trial as the preliminary Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study have been invaluable. The lessons learnt and knowledge gained will inform the future execution of this trial in the coming years. We anticipate that these results will also be beneficial to other researchers conducting similar trials in the public health field. We recommend that researchers openly share their experiences, barriers and challenges when conducting randomised controlled trials and implementation research. We encourage them to describe the factors that may have inhibited or enhanced the desired outcomes so that the academic community can learn and expand the research foundation of implementation salvage.
-
ItemMothers After Gestational Diabetes in Australia Diabetes Prevention Program (MAGDA-DPP) post-natal intervention: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial(BMC, 2013-10-17)BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as glucose intolerance with its onset or first recognition during pregnancy. Post-GDM women have a life-time risk exceeding 70% of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Lifestyle modifications reduce the incidence of T2DM by up to 58% for high-risk individuals. METHODS/DESIGN: The Mothers After Gestational Diabetes in Australia Diabetes Prevention Program (MAGDA-DPP) is a randomized controlled trial aiming to assess the effectiveness of a structured diabetes prevention intervention for post-GDM women. This trial has an intervention group participating in a diabetes prevention program (DPP), and a control group receiving usual care from their general practitioners during the same time period. The 12-month intervention comprises an individual session followed by five group sessions at two-week intervals, and two follow-up telephone calls. A total of 574 women will be recruited, with 287 in each arm. The women will undergo blood tests, anthropometric measurements, and self-reported health status, diet, physical activity, quality of life, depression, risk perception and healthcare service usage, at baseline and 12 months. At completion, primary outcome (changes in diabetes risk) and secondary outcome (changes in psychosocial and quality of life measurements and in cardiovascular disease risk factors) will be assessed in both groups. DISCUSSION: This study aims to show whether MAGDA-DPP leads to a reduction in diabetes risk for post-GDM women. The characteristics that predict intervention completion and improvement in clinical and behavioral measures will be useful for further development of DPPs for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTRN 12610000338066.
-
ItemMothers after Gestational Diabetes in Australia (MAGDA): A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Postnatal Diabetes Prevention Program(PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2016-07)BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an increasingly prevalent risk factor for type 2 diabetes. We evaluated the effectiveness of a group-based lifestyle modification program in mothers with prior GDM within their first postnatal year. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this study, 573 women were randomised to either the intervention (n = 284) or usual care (n = 289). At baseline, 10% had impaired glucose tolerance and 2% impaired fasting glucose. The diabetes prevention intervention comprised one individual session, five group sessions, and two telephone sessions. Primary outcomes were changes in diabetes risk factors (weight, waist circumference, and fasting blood glucose), and secondary outcomes included achievement of lifestyle modification goals and changes in depression score and cardiovascular disease risk factors. The mean changes (intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis) over 12 mo were as follows: -0.23 kg body weight in intervention group (95% CI -0.89, 0.43) compared with +0.72 kg in usual care group (95% CI 0.09, 1.35) (change difference -0.95 kg, 95% CI -1.87, -0.04; group by treatment interaction p = 0.04); -2.24 cm waist measurement in intervention group (95% CI -3.01, -1.42) compared with -1.74 cm in usual care group (95% CI -2.52, -0.96) (change difference -0.50 cm, 95% CI -1.63, 0.63; group by treatment interaction p = 0.389); and +0.18 mmol/l fasting blood glucose in intervention group (95% CI 0.11, 0.24) compared with +0.22 mmol/l in usual care group (95% CI 0.16, 0.29) (change difference -0.05 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.14, 0.05; group by treatment interaction p = 0.331). Only 10% of women attended all sessions, 53% attended one individual and at least one group session, and 34% attended no sessions. Loss to follow-up was 27% and 21% for the intervention and control groups, respectively, primarily due to subsequent pregnancies. Study limitations include low exposure to the full intervention and glucose metabolism profiles being near normal at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Although a 1-kg weight difference has the potential to be significant for reducing diabetes risk, the level of engagement during the first postnatal year was low. Further research is needed to improve engagement, including participant involvement in study design; it is potentially more effective to implement annual diabetes screening until women develop prediabetes before offering an intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000338066.
-
ItemChallenges of diabetes prevention in the real world: results and lessons from the Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2015-01)OBJECTIVE: To assess effectiveness and implementability of the public health programme Life! Taking action on diabetes in Australian people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS) was a unique study assessing effectiveness of Life! that used a randomized controlled trial design. Intervention participants with AUSDRISK score ≥15 received 1 individual and 5 structured 90 min group sessions. Controls received usual care. Outcome measures were obtained for all participants at baseline and 12 months and, additionally, for intervention participants at 3 months. Per protocol set (PPS) and intention to treat (ITT) analyses were performed. RESULTS: PPS analyses were considered more informative from our study. In PPS analyses, intervention participants significantly improved in weight (-1.13 kg, p=0.016), waist circumference (-1.35 cm, p=0.044), systolic (-5.2 mm Hg, p=0.028) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.2 mm Hg, p=0.030) compared with controls. Based on observed weight change, estimated risk of developing diabetes reduced by 9.6% in the intervention and increased by 3.3% in control participants. Absolute 5-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduced significantly for intervention participants by 0.97 percentage points from 9.35% (10.4% relative risk reduction). In control participants, the risk increased by 0.11 percentage points (1.3% relative risk increase). The net effect for the change in CVD risk was -1.08 percentage points of absolute risk (p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: MDPS effectively reduced the risk of diabetes and CVD, but the intervention effect on weight and waist reduction was modest due to the challenges in recruiting high-risk individuals and the abbreviated intervention.