Back

The effectiveness of digital delivery versus group-based face-to-face delivery of the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme: a non-inferiority retrospective cohort comparison study

Marsden, A. M.; Hann, M.; Barron, E.; McGough, B.; Murray, E.; Valabhji, J.; Cotterill, S.

2023-02-23 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.02.21.23286221 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionFace-to-face group-based diabetes prevention programmes have been shown to be effective in many settings. Digital delivery may suit some patients, but research comparing the effectiveness of digital with face-to-face delivery is scarce. The aim was to assess if digital delivery of the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) is non-inferior to group-based face-to-face delivery in terms of weight change, and evaluate factors associated with differential change. The study included those recruited to the NHS DPP in 2017-2018. Research design and methodsIndividual-level data from a face-to-face cohort was compared to two cohorts on a digital pilot who (i) were offered no choice of delivery mode, or (ii) chose digital over face-to-face. Changes in weight at 6 and 12 months were analysed using mixed effects linear regression, having matched participants from the digital pilot to similar participants from face-to-face. ResultsWeight change on the digital pilot was non-inferior to face-to-face at both time points: it was similar in the comparison of those with no choice (difference in weight change: -0.284kg [95% CI: -0.712, 0.144] at 6 months) and greater in digital when participants were offered a choice (-1.165kg [95% CI: -1.841, -0.489]). Interactions between delivery mode and sex, ethnicity, age and deprivation were observed. ConclusionsDigital delivery of the NHS DPP achieved weight loss at least as good as face-to-face. Patients who were offered a choice and opted for digital experienced better weight loss, compared to patients offered face-to-face only.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.