Abstract
The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) has been shown to prevent type 2 diabetes through lifestyle modification. The purpose of this study was to describe the literature on DPP translation, synthesizing studies using cultural adaptation and implementation research. A systematic search was conducted. Original studies evaluating DPP implementation and/or cultural adaptation were included. Data about cultural adaptation, implementation outcomes, and translation strategies was abstracted. A total of 44 were included, of which 15 reported cultural adaptations and 38 explored implementation. Many studies shortened the program length and reported a group format. The most commonly reported cultural adaptation (13 of 15) was with content. At the individual level, the most frequently assessed implementation outcome (n = 30) was adoption. Feasibility was most common (n = 32) at the organization level. The DPP is being tested in a variety of settings and populations, using numerous translational strategies and cultural adaptations. Implementation research that identifies, evaluates, and reports efforts to translate the DPP into practice is crucial.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
INTRODUCTION
Nearly 26 million people in the USA—8.3 % of the population—have diabetes, and 90–95 % have type 2 diabetes [1]. Diabetes in adults is the leading cause of new cases of blindness, kidney failure, and non-injury amputations of the feet and legs. In 2007, the cost associated with diabetes was $174 billion [1]. Diabetes and its complications are largely preventable [2, 3]; obesity, physical inactivity, and unhealthy eating account for over half of new cases [4, 5].
Racial/ethnic minorities are at substantially higher risk for type 2 diabetes and continue to experience greater rates of hospitalization due to diabetes-related complications and 50–100 % higher morbidity and mortality than their white counterparts [6–8]. To address such health disparities effectively, interventions need to attend to cultural factors to increase engagement of ethnic minority populations in prevention programs [9–11]. Despite calls for sensitive treatment for multicultural populations, with the aim of decreasing health disparities and ensuring access to quality services [12], much remains to be learned about how to adapt interventions [13–16].
Several landmark studies have shown reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes among adults in response to lifestyle interventions. Results from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) showed that through a lifestyle intervention, incidence of type 2 diabetes could be reduced by 58 % [17]. The two major goals of the DPP lifestyle intervention were a minimum of 7 % weight loss/weight maintenance and a minimum of 150 min/week of physical activity. The DPP included (1) individual case managers or “lifestyle coaches”; (2) frequent contact; (3) a structured, 16-session core curriculum including behavioral self-management strategies; (4) supervised physical activity; (5) a maintenance intervention; (6) a “toolbox” of adherence strategies; (7) tailoring of materials and strategies to address ethnic diversity; and (8) an extensive network of training, feedback, and clinical support, to reach these goals [17]. Prevention through lifestyle changes exceeded that achieved by the medication metformin [17]. The DPP results mirror those in the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study [18]. Together, these interventions laid the groundwork for diabetes prevention through lifestyle intervention. While randomized trials have shown that primary prevention is possible, population-level approaches are needed for widespread benefit [5, 19]. Translation research focuses on dissemination of efficacious interventions to a target audience, including intervention adaptation [20]. For the purposes of organizing the current review, translation research is a broad domain that encompasses both cultural adaptation and implementation research. Translation and implementation of the DPP is occurring in a variety of settings and to diverse populations [21–24].
To extend the reach of programs such as the DPP, the literature on cultural adaptation of evidence-based interventions (EBI) offers guidance on how to adapt an intervention to increase its fit for the target population [25]. Some frameworks inform modification of the intervention content, such as the Ecological Validity Model (EVM) [26], whereas others inform the cultural adaptation process [27]. Cultural adaptation is the systematic modification of an EBI to consider language, culture, and context to be compatible with the participant’s cultural patterns, meanings, and values [28]. Culture, in this context, is defined as “the belief systems and value orientations that influence customs, norms, practices, and social institutions, including psychological processes (language, caretaking, practices, media, educational systems) and organizations” [29].
The EVM by Bernal et al. [26] serves as a guide for organizing the literature on modifications to the DPP. This cultural adaptation framework was developed to strengthen ecological validity for intervention outcome research and describes eight dimensions of an intervention that can be adapted. Modification of the language is more than the translation of the materials. It is the adaptation of the materials in a culturally appropriate way, ensuring the message is received as intended. Persons refers to client and provider variables, and the relationship between these individuals; metaphors are symbols and concepts shared with the target population; and content refers to cultural knowledge (i.e., social, economic, historical and political values, customs and traditions). Concepts refers to the constructs of a theoretical model: how the problem/intervention is conceptualized and communicated with the participant. The goals of the intervention should be aligned between the provider and the participant, with support from the cultural values of the target population. The seventh dimension refers to the methods or procedures for achieving the intervention goals. Finally, the culturally sensitive context considers the clients’ context (e.g., economic, political, developmental) during the intervention.
There are several frameworks that can guide the process of adaptation and which help investigators decide when and whether an intervention should be adapted [25]. Meta-analyses have identified moderators that indicate when and which cultural groups would benefit from a culturally adapted intervention [30]. For example, culturally adapted interventions seem to be more beneficial when modifications of the intervention are related to participants’ explanatory models of illness and when the use of metaphors corresponds with participants’ cultural perspectives [30]. Even when cultural adaptation is thought to be appropriate, the adaptations are often not as carefully documented as those conducted in developing interventions; investigators conducting translation research may simply assume that “adaptation happens” [31]. Determining the efficacy of the adapted EBI is hindered in the absence of a description of what was adapted.
Implementation research seeks to develop and apply the scientific methods to promote uptake of EBIs into routine health care in clinical, organizational, public health, or policy contexts [32]. Building on efficacy and effectiveness research that focuses on what works, implementation research explores how implementation of an effective program works in specific contexts [33]. Translation strategies refer to the systematic processes, activities, and resources that are used to integrate interventions into usual settings [34], such as pre-service and in-service training, ongoing consultation and coaching, staff and program evaluation, administrative support, and systems interventions [35]. Proctor and colleagues [36, 37] have suggested a taxonomy of implementation outcomes that are critical to evaluate as part of implementation studies. These outcomes include acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. Implementation outcomes help improve our understanding of which implementation strategies work best with specific interventions, settings, and conditions. Tests of implementation strategies should be guided by available theories, conceptual models, and/or frameworks to ensure essential contextual and process elements related to implementation are not overlooked [38, 39]. Implementation frameworks also provide a systematic way to evaluate interventions and facilitate replication across settings.
To better understand the current state of DPP translations, we systematically reviewed the literature. The goals of this review were to: 1) synthesize studies using cultural adaptations when testing or evaluating diabetes prevention interventions and 2) inventory implementation research occurring within translation studies.
METHODS
Data sources
We searched Academic Search Complete [MEDLINE (PubMed) CINAHL; CINAHL PLUS; GLOBAL HEALTH; SOCIAL WORK ABSTRACTS; PSCYINFO/ARTICLES/CRITIQUES; GLOBAL HEALTH ARCHIVE] and Google Scholar from January 2004 to December 2013. Studies of DPP translations were identified using the following terms: “Diabetes Prevention Program,” “DPP,” “dissemination and implementation,” “evaluation,” “implementation outcomes,” “outcomes,” “translation,” “translating,” and “translation.” Additional studies were extracted from the reference lists of identified articles.
Study selection
The searches were restricted to English-language articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Articles were excluded from the review if they were letters, editorials, literature reviews, perspective articles, re-analysis of an existing trial, descriptions of the DPP, or non-empirical. Articles that met the following criteria were selected for abstraction: (1) the intervention was the DPP or an adaptation of the DPP, and (2) the article reported original research or evaluation on an implementation of the DPP. Articles were screened for inclusion by two authors and discrepancies were discussed until agreement was reached.
Using this search strategy, we identified 67 citations (Fig. 1), of which 62 were deemed relevant through abstract review (four articles were excluded because they were reviews; one was eliminated because it was a duplicate of another article). Fourteen articles were excluded because they did not involve original research on implementation of the DPP program (i.e., they were perspective articles, re-analysis of an existing trial, or description of the DPP), leaving 48 articles. An additional four articles were identified from reference lists, resulting in 52 articles selected for full-text review, and of these, eight articles were eliminated because they mentioned the DPP but were not using the DPP intervention.
Data extraction
Two authors independently reviewed and coded the articles to ensure compliance with the inclusion criteria. To assess the extent to which adaptation and implementation of the DPP have been reported, the articles were categorized based on program characteristics, such as program name and setting (Table 1). Further, included studies were evaluated to determine (1) translational strategies and/or cultural adaptations, (2) implementation strategies, or (3) both. A checklist for coding implementation and adaptation was developed through an iterative process by the study authors. Two reviewers coded a sample of 10 % of the articles. Upon achieving substantial agreement (>90 %), one reviewer coded each of the remaining articles.
We coded three aspects of the adaptation and implementation process: (1) translational strategies, (2) cultural adaptation, and (3) implementation. To evaluate what adaptations had been made to meet the needs of study subjects or particular cultural groups, we used the eight categories of the EVM framework: language, persons, metaphors, content, concepts, goals, methods, and context [26]. To assess how the adaptation was made, we extracted descriptions of the process of adaptation. To operationalize this, our review identified articles reporting cultural adaptation of the DPP; that is, studies that explicitly accounted for clients’ culture, ethnicity, or race. Studies that only translated the materials into a different language were considered to have adapted the intervention, but this was not considered to be a cultural adaptation. We also evaluated whether a framework of adaptation was used, such as those outlined by Bernal and Domenech Rodriguez [25]. We coded studies that were empirical and designed to test an implementation strategy or set of strategies or explored issues related to implementation as implementation studies [40, 41]. These studies were coded for study design, implementation strategy, implementation outcomes, and whether or not a conceptual model or framework was used to guide the study and/or implementation effort. For the implementation outcomes, we relied on Proctor and colleagues’ taxonomy that includes acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability [42].
RESULTS
Program characteristics
A total of 44 papers were reviewed (Table 1). Most studies implemented the DPP in churches (n = 8), medical settings (n = 18), or community centers (n = 10) (Table 1). Fewer programs targeted the intervention to a specific population; eight targeted African-Americans, four involved Latinos, and three Native Americans. While most studies included both an implementation and outcome evaluation component (n = 35), we identified three studies that primarily reported on implementation; six studies primarily assessed effectiveness of the program but had minimal implementation evaluation. Thus, 38 studies were coded as implementation studies. Less than half of the 44 studies (n = 15) were coded as describing a cultural adaptation of the DPP.
Translation strategies
Adaptations of the DPP are summarized in Table 2. There was large variability in the number of studies reporting each type of intervention adaptation. Many articles reported modifying the words of their program to incorporate cultural competence or sensitivity, to be understandable to low-literacy audiences, or to be in the language of the target population. Another adaptation was changing the program administration, including reducing the timeline (often to 12 weeks) and frequency of meetings. Nearly all (n = 42) of the articles reported a group-based intervention. The characteristics of individuals selected to lead the intervention varied, with many (n = 18) using lay health workers. In health care settings, medical staff were typically enlisted as facilitators of the DPP. The ethnicity of the medical staff was often matched to the target population. The length (from 1 h to 2 days) and source (e.g., self-study materials, individuals previously trained to deliver the DPP) of training for program implementers varied across studies.
Cultural adaptation
Only five of the 15 studies that described cultural adaptation (Table 2) included a framework. The framework for all five was community-based participatory research (CBPR). These 15 studies tended to focus on the components of persons and content, with less emphasis on the other categories explored. The most commonly reported adaptation (13 of 15 articles) was content. The adaptation of DPP materials included targeting a cultural group. When this was described, it centered on modifying recipes or discussing cultural ideas about diabetes. Modification in the persons category involved delivery of the program by community members/peer educators and community health workers. Ten studies (67 %) reported matching the ethnicity of the implementation staff to that of the participants and training community members to deliver the DPP. This was described as going beyond language to include selection of community health workers from the target population. Studies targeting specific populations, such as through African-American churches, were the most likely to include cultural adaptation.
Implementation
To evaluate implementation, most studies (n = 22, 58 %) used pre/post designs with no control group (Table 1); only nine were randomized controlled trials. In total, 11 studies reported an implementation framework (Table 3).
At the individual level, the most frequently assessed implementation outcome was adoption, which was typically reported as the number of individuals who participated from a pool of potential participants. Of the six studies that mentioned a program fee, most reported the fee was a barrier to adoption. Twenty-nine studies reported on feasibility at the individual level. Feasibility was explored in a number of ways, including attendance rates, dropout rates, and difficulty with parts of the program (most commonly, completing the diet and activity tracking and transportation to attend program sessions). At the level of the organization, feasibility was most commonly reported; studies often mentioned cost, staffing, and space. Interestingly, among articles that reported program acceptability and/or feasibility at the organizational level in the abstract, discussion, and/or conclusion, most did not describe how this was determined. There was a considerable overlap between the studies reporting organization-level outcomes related to sustainability and those reporting outcomes related to penetration; if a study reported on one, they tended to report on the other. Sustainability involved the extent to which the DPP is maintained or institutionalized within a setting’s ongoing, stable operations strategies, and penetration is defined as the integration of a practice within a service setting and its subsystems.
DISCUSSION
The 44 studies in this review provide evidence that the DPP is being tested or evaluated in a variety of settings and populations, using numerous translation strategies and cultural adaptations. Since the DPP represents a milestone in lifestyle interventions for diabetes prevention [17, 18], significant effort has gone into translating the program to diverse populations and to those of disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds to reach those most at risk. This has required translation and implementation into settings, which require adaptations to the intervention to enhance the feasibility of program delivery and participant engagement [43].
Other review articles reported translations of the DPP in settings similar to those identified in the current review and noted adaptations were necessary for program fit [44, 45]. For example, while relatively less information was available about program adaptation at the time of an earlier review by Whittemore et al. [45], implementation of the DPP has increased. Twenty-three of the studies in the current review were published after the date for inclusion in the Whittemore et al. review and thus were not included in that earlier review. With efforts to implement DPP widely, the number of studies and implementations of the intervention has increased, enhancing the need to synthesize implementation efforts, particularly using the growing toolbox from the maturing field of implementation science. We found several common adaptations across the 44 studies reviewed, such as delivering the program in groups, offering the program over 12 sessions, and program delivery by existing staff from the implementing organization (to enhance feasibility and appropriateness) or by trained community members (to enhance implementation and cultural adaptation). Further, researchers, program developers, and practitioners are employing a number of strategies to enhance translation of the program and reduce costs (e.g., reducing the frequency of classes, trimming the toolkit).
Of the few studies that focused on cultural adaptation of the DPP, we found several involved adaptation of program materials to target a cultural group. Many culturally adapted interventions increased ethnic matching between facilitators and participants, which was reported to facilitate cultural tailoring of the material [46]. Modification in the persons category were also common. Health interventions involving community health workers have emerged as an important approach to health promotion. Community health workers are typically respected and trusted community members, responsive to the needs of others [47], and are able to serve as “bridges” [48] and “culture brokers” [46] between community residents and the health care delivery system. There is clear evidence that interventions using community health workers can result in changes in knowledge and health practices [49–51].
Cultural adaptation of DPP content was another form of adaptation among a subset of the programs reviewed. Content adaptation has been shown to increase relevance of programs for participants [52–54]. Many cultural adaptations involved working within the community through CBPR, which appeared to facilitate community buy-in. For example, several studies adapted program content to include discussion of local foods and materials to provide information on how to prepare these items in healthier ways. Other adaptations encouraged participating in local and/or traditional physical activities and discussed cultural, social, and environmental forces that influence obesity and diabetes.
Cultural adaption may not be part of translation efforts for several reasons. The study team may not have experience with culturally adapting an evidence-based program and/or may lack the funding to support the additional work (e.g., formative evaluation, changing the visuals in DPP materials) required to adapt the DPP. If a particular translation is not designed to be implemented in a population with a specific cultural background, cultural adaptation may not be indicated; many of translation efforts explored were aimed at different settings, such as primary care. Adaptation may also be taking place, but go unreported, at least in the scientific literature.
While program adaptation can facilitate successful implementation, modifying an evidence-based program has the potential to alter program impact and must be tested and evaluated carefully during the implementation process [31, 43]. Our study was not a systematic review of the relationship between the degree of intervention adaptation, implementation efforts, cultural adaptation, and program impact (i.e., behavioral or physiologic outcomes). However, of the articles included in our analysis, 36 contain physiologic or behavioral outcomes (i.e., weight, glucose, insulin, lipids, blood pressure, diet, or physical activity), and of these, all had favorable results for at least one outcome. The heterogeneity in all three factors and outcomes selected for measurement make further analysis difficult. Thus, whether and/or to what extent program adaptation alters program impact remains an important question for future research.
Standard approaches to documenting translation and adaptation would facilitate the identification of that adaptation’s enhanced implementation and effectiveness. This includes documenting changes to intervention materials and how decisions regarding these changes were made. Greater standardization in outcome reporting would also facilitate this process; however, a number of studies reported selecting outcome measures based on challenges related to implementation of data collection (e.g., capacity to obtain fasting blood samples). Despite the lack of standardization and difficulty determining the impact of program changes on outcomes, the adaptations described in the current literature may guide future efforts to translate the DPP.
Authors documented a number of ways in which they assessed and reported implementation outcomes for their translation efforts. Overall, 38 studies reported implementation evaluations with a variety of study designs; most were pre-post evaluations without a control group. However, there were nine randomized controlled trials. Designing translation efforts and evaluations based on an implementation framework can greatly enhance such efforts; however, only 11 studies used an implementation framework. The plan for data collection and analysis may be related to the initial aim of program development, i.e., whether the implementation was designed as a research study or an evaluation of a program implemented in a practice setting. In our review, we found that 27 studies were research, 11 were evaluation, and 6 had components of both research and evaluation. It is encouraging that many studies reported individual- and organizational-level implementation outcomes, incorporating measures such as feasibility and acceptability through processes put in place during the intervention. In some studies, process evaluations were conducted after implementation using qualitative and quantitative data collection with participants and implementers. These data can contribute to future translation efforts. However, most studies lack reporting on important implementation outcomes such as costs [55], which may be a major detriment to putting the DPP into practice through insurance reimbursement and providing access to the majority of the population for whom access is currently lacking. Also lacking was a robust discussion on program sustainability with only 13 studies (and only six cultural adaptation studies) assessing this important implementation outcome. Future studies incorporating assessment of cost and sustainability can greatly benefit continued efforts to increase uptake of the DPP.
This review has limitations. Although many studies included varying adaptations, some adaptations were not described and therefore could not be included in our analysis. Second, we restricted our search to the DPP. While there may be other effective programs to prevent diabetes, the DPP has shown efficacy and effectiveness in previous trials and has been disseminated widely. There are likely unpublished studies and programs that included cultural adaptation of the DPP. Further, though we looked for cited studies that might provide more detail about cultural adaptation from other papers, it is possible we missed ancillary articles with additional detail. Additionally, due to the heterogeneity of adaptations and outcomes reported, we could not summarize the impact of adaptation on program effectiveness.
IMPLICATIONS
In addition to the many studies testing DPP implementation efforts, major national initiatives (e.g., the YMCA program, the CDC’s National DPP) are implementing the DPP. The current literature synthesis can inform these implementation efforts and guide evaluation of these initiatives. Practitioners should consider translational strategies and cultural adaptation to increase program relevance, satisfaction, and participation [43]. Support from policymakers is important as translational challenges are multilevel and multifactorial, reflecting the diverse nature of individuals, health systems, and communities [21]. When researchers provide detailed reporting of adaptations and lessons learned during translation it can help the DPP be effectively adapted for populations that experience a disproportionate burden of obesity and diabetes.
References
CDC. Diabetes: successes and opportunities for population-based prevention and control: at a glance 2011. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998; 352(9131): 837-853.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 977-986.
Psaltopoulou T, Ilias I, Alevizaki M. The role of diet and lifestyle in primary, secondary, and tertiary diabetes prevention: a review of meta-analyses. Rev Diabet Stud. 2010; 7(1): 26-35.
Schulze MB, Hu FB. Primary prevention of diabetes: what can be done and how much can be prevented? Annu Rev Public Health. 2005; 26: 445-467.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2005; http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/cps3dix.htm. Accessed August 4, 2005.
Chow EA, Foster H, Gonzalez V, McIver L. The disparate impact of diabetes on racial/ethnic minority populations. ClinDiabetes. 2012; 30(3): 130-133.
National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse (NDIC). National diabetes statistics. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2011.
Bernal G, Sáez-Santiago E. Culturally centered psychosocial interventions. Am J Community Psychol. 2006; 34(2): 121-132.
Castro FG, Barrera M Jr, Holleran Steiker LK. Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010; 6: 213-239.
Ramos Z, Alegria M. Cultural adaptation and health literacy refinement of a brief depression intervention for Latinos in a low-resource setting. Cult Divers Ethn Minor Psychol. 2014; 20(2): 293-301.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. HHS Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/specialtopics/health_disparities/.
Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA. 2004; 291(22): 2720-2726.
Fortune T, Wright E, Juzang I, Bull S. Recruitment, enrollment and retention of young black men for HIV prevention research: experiences from the 411 for safe text project. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010; 31(2): 151-156.
Nguyen TT, Jayadeva V, Cizza G, et al. Challenging recruitment of youth with type 2 diabetes into clinical trials. J Adolesc Health. 2014; 54(3): 247-254.
Shavers VL, Lynch CF, Burmeister LF. Knowledge of the Tuskegee study and its impact on the willingness to participate in medical research studies. J Natl Med Assoc. 2000; 92(12): 563-572.
Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) Research Group. The diabetes prevention program (DPP): description of lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25(12): 2165-2171.
Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Erilsson J, Valle TT, Hamalainen H. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344(18): 1343-1350.
Tuomilehto J. Primary prevention of type 2 diabetes: lifestyle intervention works and saves money, but what should be done with smokers? Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142(5): 381-383.
Rabin B, Brownson R. Developing the terminology for dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, eds. Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012: 23-51.
Garfield SA, Malozowski S, Chin MH, et al. Considerations for diabetes translational research in real-world settings. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26(9): 2670-2674.
Glasgow RE, Fisher EB, Anderson BJ, et al. Behavioral science in diabetes. Contributions and opportunities. Diabetes Care. 1999; 22(5): 832-843.
Glasgow RE, Goldstein MG, Ockene JK, Pronk NP. Translating what we have learned into practice. Principles and hypotheses for interventions addressing multiple behaviors in primary care. Am J Prev Med. 2004; 27(2 Suppl): 88-101.
Kriska A, Delahanty L, Pettee K. Lifestyle intervention for the prevention of type 2 diabetes: translation and future recommendations. Curr Diab Rep. 2004; 4: 113-118.
Bernal G, Domenech Rodriguez MM. Cultural Adaptations: Tools for Evidence-Based Practice with Diverse Populations. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2012.
Bernal G, Bonilla J, Bellido C. Ecological validity and cultural sensitivity for outcome research: issues for the cultural adaptation and development of psychosocial treatments with Hispanics. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1995; 23(1): 67-82.
Marsiglia FF, Booth JM. Cultural adaptation of interventions in real practice settings. Res Soc Work Pract. 2014; 1049731514535989.
Bernal G, Jiménez-Chafey M, Domenech RM. Cultural adaptation of treatments: a resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2009; 40(4): 361.
American Psychological Association. Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Am Psychol. 2003; 58(5): 377-402.
Cabassa LJ, Baumann AA. A two-way street: bridging implementation science and cultural adaptations of mental health treatments. Implement Sci. 2013; 8: 90.
Allen I, Linnan L, Emmons K. Fidelity and its relationship to implementation effectiveness, adaptation, and dissemination. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, eds. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012: 281.
Eccles MP, Foy R, Sales A, Wensing M, Mittman B. Implementation science six years on—our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review. Implement Sci. 2012; 7: 71.
Damschroder L, Peikes D, Petersen D. Using implementation research to guide adaptation, implementation, and dissemination of patient-centered medical home models. 2013;AHRQ Publication No. 13-0027-EF(February 2013). http://pcmh.ahrq.gov/page/using-implementation-research-guide-adaptation-implementation-and-dissemination-patient. Accessed August 4, 2014.
National Institutes of Health. Dissemination, implementation, and operational research for HIV prevention interventions (R01). Vol PAR-08-166. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2009: 24.
Fixsen D, Naoom S, Blase K, Friedman R, Wallace F. Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa, Florida: National Implementation Research Network, University of South Florida; 2005.
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011; 38(2): 65-76.
Proctor EK, Brownson R. Measurement issues in dissemination and implementation research. In: RC B, Colditz G, EK P, eds. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012: 261-280.
Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012; 43(3): 337-350.
Proctor EK, Powell BJ, Baumann AA, Hamilton AM, Santens RL. Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients. Implement Sci. 2012; 7: 96.
Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Res Soc Work Pract. 2014; 24(2): 192-212.
Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012; 50(3): 217-226.
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011; 38(2): 65-76.
Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008; 41(3–4): 327-350.
Johnson M, Jones R, Freeman C, et al. Can diabetes prevention programmes be translated effectively into real-world settings and still deliver improved outcomes? a synthesis of evidence. Diabet Med. 2013; 30(1): 3-15.
Whittemore R. A systematic review of the translational research on the diabetes prevention program. Translat Behav Med. 2011; 1(3): 480-491.
McElroy A, Jezewski MA. Cultural variation in the experience of health and illness. The handbook of social studies in health and medicine. CA: Sage: Thousand Oaks; 2000: 191-209.
Heaney CA, Israel BA. Social networks and social support. In: Glanz K, Rimer B, Lewis F, eds. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 185-209.
Love MB, Gardner K, Legion V. Community health workers: who they are and what they do. Health Educ Behav. 1997; 24(4): 510-522.
Tang TS, Nwankwo R, Whiten Y, Oney C. Training peers to deliver a church-based diabetes prevention program. Diabetes Educ. 2012; 38(4): 519-525.
Satterfield DW, Volansky M, Caspersen CJ, et al. Community-based lifestyle interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26(9): 2643-2652.
Goldfinger JZ, Kronish IM, Fei K, et al. Peer education for secondary stroke prevention in inner-city minorities: design and methods of the prevent recurrence of all inner-city strokes through education randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012; 33(5): 1065-1073.
Carter JS, Gilliland SS, Perez GE, et al. Native American diabetes project: designing culturally relevant education materials. Diabetes Educ. 1997; 23(2): 133-134. 139.
Feathers JT, Kieffer EC, Palmisano G, et al. The development, implementation, and process evaluation of the REACH Detroit Partnership's diabetes lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Educ. 2007; 33(3): 509-520.
Sinclair KA, Makahi EK, Shea-Solatorio C, Yoshimura SR, Townsend CK, Kaholokula JK. Outcomes from a diabetes self-management intervention for native Hawaiians and Pacific people: partners in care. Ann Behav Med. 2012; 45(1): 24-32.
Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006; 29(1): 126-153.
Ackermann RT, Marrero DG. Adapting the diabetes prevention program lifestyle intervention for delivery in the community: the YMCA model. Diabetes Educ. 2007; 33(1): 69-78.
Aldana SG, Barlow M, Smith R, et al. The diabetes prevention program: a worksite experience. AAOHN J. 2005; 53(11): 499-505. quiz 506–497.
Amundson HA, Butcher MK, Gohdes D, et al. Translating the diabetes prevention program into practice in the general community: findings from the Montana cardiovascular disease and diabetes prevention program. Diabetes Educ. 2009; 35(2): 209-223.
Boltri JM, Davis-Smith YM, Seale JP, Shellenberger S, Okosun IS, Cornelius ME. Diabetes prevention in a faith-based setting: results of translational research. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008; 14(1): 29-32.
Boltri JM, Davis-Smith M, Okosun IS, Seale JP, Foster B. Translation of the National Institutes of Health Diabetes Prevention Program in African American churches. J Natl Med Assoc. 2011; 103(3): 194-202.
Brown BD, Harris KJ, Harris JL, Parker M, Ricci C, Noonan C. Translating the diabetes prevention program for northern plains Indian youth through community-based participatory research methods. Diabetes Educ. 2010; 36(6): 924-935.
Dallam GM, Foust CP. A comparative approach to using the diabetes prevention program to reduce diabetes risk in a worksite setting. Health Promot Pract. 2013; 14(2): 199-204.
Davis-Smith YM, Davis-Smith M, Boltri JM, et al. Implementing a diabetes prevention program in a rural African-American church. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007; 99(4): 440-446.
DeJoy DM, Padilla HM, Wilson MG, Vandenberg RJ, Davis MA. Worksite translation of the diabetes prevention program: formative research and pilot study results from FUEL your life. Health Promot Pract. 2013; 14(4): 506-513.
Dodani S, Kramer MK, Williams L, Crawford S, Kriska A. Fit body and soul: a church-based behavioral lifestyle program for diabetes prevention in African Americans. Ethn Dis. 2009; 19(2): 135-141.
Dodani S, Fields JZ. Implementation of the fit body and soul, a church-based life style program for diabetes prevention in high-risk African Americans: a feasibility study. Diabetes Educ. 2010; 36(3): 465-472.
Guyse LA, McHugh BR, Meszaros JF, et al. Collaborative approach to implementing an adapted diabetes prevention program lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Spectrum. 2011; 24(3): 138-143.
Harwell TS, Vanderwood KK, Hall TO, Butcher MK, Helgerson SD. Factors associated with achieving a weight loss goal among participants in an adapted diabetes prevention program. Prim Care Diabetes. 2011; 5(2): 125-129.
Jiang L, Manson SM, Beals J, et al. Translating the diabetes prevention program into American Indian and Alaska native communities: results from the special diabetes program for Indians diabetes prevention demonstration project. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36(7): 2027-2034.
Katula JA, Vitolins MZ, Rosenberger EL, et al. Healthy living partnerships to prevent diabetes (HELP PD): design and methods. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010; 31(1): 71-81.
Katula JA, Vitolins MZ, Rosenberger EL, et al. One-year results of a community-based translation of the diabetes prevention program: healthy-living partnerships to prevent diabetes (HELP PD) project. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34(7): 1451-1457.
Kramer MK, Kriska AM, Venditti EM, et al. Translating the diabetes prevention program: a comprehensive model for prevention training and program delivery. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 37(6): 505-511.
Kramer MK, McWilliams JR, Chen HY, Siminerio LM. A community-based diabetes prevention program: evaluation of the group lifestyle balance program delivered by diabetes educators. Diabetes Educ. 2011; 37(5): 659-668.
Kramer MK, Cepak YP, Venditti EM, Semler LN, Kriska AM. Evaluation of the group lifestyle balance programme for diabetes prevention in a Hispanic women, infants and children (WIC) programme population in the USA. Divers Equality Health Care. 2013; 10(2): 73-82.
Krukowski RA, Pope RA, Love S, et al. Examination of costs for a lay health educator-delivered translation of the diabetes prevention program in senior centers. Prev Med. 2013; 57(4): 400-402.
Lawlor MS, Blackwell CS, Isom SP, et al. Cost of a group translation of the diabetes prevention program: healthy living partnerships to prevent diabetes. Am J Prev Med. 2013; 44(4 Suppl 4): S381-S389.
Ma J, Yank V, Xiao L, et al. Translating the diabetes prevention program lifestyle intervention for weight loss into primary care: a randomized trial. JAMA internal medicine. 2013; 173(2): 113-121.
Matvienko OA, Hoehns JD. A lifestyle intervention study in patients with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance: translation of a research intervention into practice. J Am Board Fam Med. 2009; 22(5): 535-543.
Mau MK, Keawe'aimoku Kaholokula J, West MR, et al. Translating diabetes prevention into native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities: the PILI 'Ohana pilot project. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2010; 4(1): 7-16.
McBride PE, Einerson JA, Grant H, et al. Putting the diabetes prevention program into practice: a program for weight loss and cardiovascular risk reduction for patients with metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Nutr Health Aging. 2008; 12(10): 745s-749s.
McTigue KM, Conroy MB, Bigi L, Murphy C, McNeil M. Weight loss through living well: translating an effective lifestyle intervention into clinical practice. Diabetes Educ. 2009; 35(2): 199-204. 208.
McTigue KM, Conroy MB, Hess R, et al. Using the Internet to translate an evidence-based lifestyle intervention into practice. Telemed J e-health. 2009; 15(9): 851-858.
New York State Health Foundation no. New York State YMCA Diabetes Prevention Program: outcomes and implications | New York State Health Foundation. October 2012.
Ockene IS, Tellez TL, Rosal MC, et al. Outcomes of a Latino community-based intervention for the prevention of diabetes: the Lawrence Latino diabetes prevention project. Am J Public Health. 2012; 102(2): 336-342.
Pagoto SL, Kantor L, Bodenlos JS, Gitkind M, Ma Y. Translating the diabetes prevention program into a hospital-based weight loss program. Health Psychol. 2008; 27(1 Suppl): S91-S98.
Perez Siwik V, Kutob RM, Ritenbaugh C, Aickin M, Gordon JS. Families united/familias unidas: development and implementation of a family-based group office visit model for the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2012; 38(6): 811-821.
Piatt GA, Seidel MC, Chen HY, Powell RO, Zgibor JC. Two-year results of translating the diabetes prevention program into an urban, underserved community. Diabetes Educ. 2012; 38(6): 798-804.
Rosal MCP, Lemon SCP, Nguyen OHTM, Driscoll NEL, DiTaranto LM, CLC. Translation of the diabetes prevention program lifestyle intervention. Transl Behav Med. 2011; 1(4): 530-538.
Ruggiero L, Oros S, Choi YK. Community-based translation of the diabetes prevention program's lifestyle intervention in an underserved Latino population. Diabetes Educ. 2011; 37(4): 564-572.
Schneider KLP, Sullican JCP, Pagoto SLP. Translation of the diabetes prevention program into a community mental. Transl Behav Med. 2011; 1(3): 453-460.
Seidel MC, Powell RO, Zgibor JC, Siminerio LM, Piatt GA. Translating the diabetes prevention program into an urban medically underserved community: a nonrandomized prospective intervention study. Diabetes Care. 2008; 31(4): 684-689.
Simkin-Silverman LR, Conroy MB, Bhargava T, McTigue KM. Development of an online diabetes prevention lifestyle intervention coaching protocol for use in primary care practice. Diabetes Educ. 2011; 37(2): 263-268.
Smith-Ray RL, Almeida FA, Bajaj J, et al. Translating efficacious behavioral principles for diabetes prevention into practice. Health Promot Pract. 2009; 10(1): 58-66.
Vadheim LM, Brewer KA, Kassner DR, et al. Effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention program among persons at high risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in a rural community. J Rural Health. 2010; 26(3): 266-272.
West DS, Bursac Z, Cornell CE, et al. Lay health educators translate a weight-loss intervention in senior centers: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 41(4): 385-391.
Whittemore R, Melkus G, Wagner J, Dziura J, Northrup V, Grey M. Translating the diabetes prevention program to primary care: a pilot study. Nurs Res. 2009; 58(1): 2-12.
Williams LB, Sattin RW, Dias J, et al. Design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a diabetes prevention program within African–American churches: the fit body and soul study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013; 34(2): 336-347.
Yank V, Stafford RS, Rosas LG, Ma J. Baseline reach and adoption characteristics in a randomized controlled trial of two weight loss interventions translated into primary care: a structured report of real-world applicability. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013; 34(1): 126-135.
Yeary KH, Cornell CE, Turner J, et al. Feasibility of an evidence-based weight loss intervention for a faith-based, rural. African American population. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011; 8(6): A146.
Acknowledgments
The work in this paper was supported by the National Cancer Institute and by Cooperative Agreement Number U48/DP001903 from the CDC (the Prevention Research Centers Program). This publication was also made possible by Grant Number 1P30DK092950 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disorders, the Implementation Research Institute (IRI), at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis; through an award from the National Institute of Mental Health (R25 MH080916-01A2) and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research & Development Service, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI); and the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant UL1TR000448 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disorders.
Compliance with ethical standards
Research did not involve human participants and/or animals.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Implications
Practice: Practitioners should consider translational strategies and cultural adaptation including those used in major national initiatives (e.g., the YMCA program, the CDC’s National DPP) to increase program relevance, satisfaction, and participation.
Policy: Support from policymakers is important as translational challenges are multilevel and multifactorial, reflecting the diverse nature of individuals, health systems, and communities.
Research: Researchers can provide detailed reporting of adaptations and lessons learned during translation so the DPP can be effectively adapted for populations that experience a disproportionate burden of obesity and diabetes.
About this article
Cite this article
Tabak, R.G., Sinclair, K.A., Baumann, A.A. et al. A review of diabetes prevention program translations: use of cultural adaptation and implementation research. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 5, 401–414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0341-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0341-0