Back

A Community-Based, Dietician-Led Nutrition Education Intervention to Improve Glycemic Control in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in an Underserved Urban Community

Gorczynski, R. M.; Zarghami, S.

2026-07-30 primary care research
10.64898/2026.07.28.26359119 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Diabetes is a major global public health challenge, associated with substantial medical, economic, and social burden worldwide. As clinicians working at the intersection of medicine and nutrition, we observed that despite advances in pharmacologic therapy, many individual, particularly those living in underserved urban communitie, continue to experience suboptimal diabetes control due to persistent barriers related to food insecurity, cultural food practices, and limited access to practical nutrition education. In response, we implemented a community-based pilot study in an underserved urban area that focused on dietitian-led nutrition education grounded in Food Is Medicine principles. Aims: The intervention emphasized culturally responsive, cost-conscious, and client-centred approaches designed to make healthy eating simple and intuitive, with the goal of complementing standard diabetic medical therapy. Methods: We used conventional diabetic marker responses, fasting blood sugar (FBS), HgbA1c (percentage of glycosylated hemoglobin, subsequently documented as A1c), and urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) in a dual cohort design study measuring whether groups receiving dietitian-led nutrition education in addition to conventional therapy would show improvements in diabetic markers relative to groups receiving conventional therapy alone. Summary: Our pilot study summed over both cohorts support the hypothesis that additional dietitian-led nutrition education synergizes with conventional pharmaceutical therapy to improve diabetic control as gauged by improved FBS, A1c and UACR, implying a significant role for this combined approach to community based diabetic health care.

Matching journals

The top 2 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.