An Evaluation of Reach for a Work Site Implementation of the National Diabetes Prevention Program Focusing on Diet and Exercise. Issue 6 (July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zigmont, Victoria A.; Shoben, Abigail B.; Kaye, Gail L.; Snow, Richard J.; Clinton, Steven K.; Harris, Randall E.; Olivo-Marston, Susan E.
• Is Part Of: American journal of health promotion. Volume 32:Issue 6(2018)
• Page Start: 1417
• Page End: 1424
• Publication Date: 2018-07
• Subjects: diabetes prevention program -- work site health promotion -- prediabetes -- RE-AIM framework; Health promotion -- Periodicals; Health Promotion; Health promotion; Periodicals; Periodicals; 613.05
• DOI: 10.1177/0890117117733348
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0890-1171

Abstract

Purpose: Our objective is to evaluate the "reach" component of the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework by comparing prediabetics who were and were not interested in enrolling in a free work site diabetes prevention program (DPP) during the first year of the program. Reach is defined as the proportion of eligible participants who enroll in a health program. Design: A cross-sectional study design was used. Setting: The setting was a large health system in the Midwest. Participants: Prediabetic health plan enrollees and spouses (N = 2158). Measures: An online health survey, annual voluntary biometric screenings delivered by a trained health-care professional using standardized protocols via point-of-care testing, and records from the DPP office were the sources of data for this study. Analysis: Health behaviors and biometric screening results were simultaneously compared using multivariable logistic regression. Results: The study population was 63% female, 79% white, and 16% black, and the mean age was 50.2 years (SD = 10.2). The reach of this program was 10%. Prediabetics were more likely to express interest in the DPP, if they were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.55-3.72; P < .001), black (AOR = 2.23; 95% CI: 1.43-3.47; P < .001), older in age (AOR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.99-1.17; P = .05), or had a high-risk waist circumference (AOR = 1.44; 95% CI: 0.98-2.13; P = .07), lower self-efficacy to make healthy changes (AOR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.91; P = .03), and 5 or more doctor visits in the last year (AOR = 2.13; 95% CI: 0.99-4.57; P = .05), after controlling for other covariates. Conclusion: Current recruitment and implementation strategies are reaching only a small group of individuals who are not representative of the larger prediabetic population. These findings inform future engagement strategies, and we recommend that public health practitioners evaluate reach to ensure that health promotion programs are of high value.