目的:以饮食和体力活动行为改变为目标的糖尿病预防计划已被证明可以降低2型糖尿病的发病率;然而,需要对干预特征进行更彻底的报告,以加快将此类程序翻译成不同的社区。本范围审查旨在综合糖尿病预防计划的报告和实施方式。
方法:按照PRISMA指南,按照Arkey和O'Malley方法进行范围审查。Medline,CINAHL,PsycINFO,EMBASE,和SPORTDiscus进行了与糖尿病预防有关的研究,和饮食/运动干预。仅包括在被确定为患有2型糖尿病的“有风险”的成年人中进行饮食/运动干预的研究。干预描述和复制模板(TIDieR)用于指导数据提取,每个DPP的评分从0到2,其报告每个项目的透彻程度(0=未报告;2=完整报告;总分/26).
结果:在筛选的25,110种出版物中,351份出版物(基于220个项目)符合纳入标准,并被纳入数据提取。没有关于所有TIDieR域的研究全面报道(平均TIDieR评分=15.7/26;范围为7至25)。与“修改”相关的域中的报告特别差,\'剪裁\',和“多么好(计划/实际)”。“(计划的)”评估干预措施的预期交付情况,根据原始设计详细说明初始策略和组件,而“如何(实际)”评估在研究期间按计划执行干预措施的程度,包括实践中的任何偏差或修改。
结论:虽然有证据表明糖尿病预防计划是有效的,需要对计划内容和交付进行更彻底的报告,以提高实施有效计划或将其转化为不同社区的能力。
OBJECTIVE: Diabetes prevention programs (DPPs) targeting dietary and physical activity behaviour change have been shown to decrease the incidence of type 2 diabetes; however, a more thorough reporting of intervention characteristics is needed to expedite the translation of such programs into different communities. In this scoping review, we aim to synthesize how DPPs are being reported and implemented.
METHODS: A scoping review using Arkey and O\'Malley methods was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and SPORTDiscus were searched for studies relating to diabetes prevention and diet/exercise interventions. Only studies delivering a diet/exercise intervention for adults identified as \"at risk\" for developing type 2 diabetes were included. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) was used to guide data extraction, and each DPP was scored on a scale from 0 to 2 for how thoroughly it reported each of the items (0 = did not report, 2 = reported in full; total score out of 26).
RESULTS: Of the 25,110 publications screened, 351 (based on 220 programs) met the inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. No studies comprehensively reported on all TIDieR domains (mean TIDieR score: 15.7 of 26; range 7 to 25). Reporting was particularly poor among domains related to \"modifications,\" \"tailoring,\" and \"how well (planned/actual).\" \"How well (planned)\" assesses the intended delivery of an intervention, detailing the initial strategies and components as per the original design, whereas \"how well (actual)\" evaluates the extent to which the intervention was executed as planned during the study, including any deviations or modifications made in practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there is evidence to suggest that DPPs are efficacious, a more thorough reporting of program content and delivery is needed to improve the ability for effective programs to be implemented or translated into different communities.