A Randomized Controlled Trial Translating the Diabetes Prevention Program to a University Worksite, Ohio, 2012–2014
ORIGINAL RESEARCH — Volume 12 — November 25, 2015
PEER REVIEWED
Of the 440 employees who inquired about the study, 217 responded to an electronic advertisement, 109 to a recruitment website, 35 to a flyer, and 6 to a university newspaper advertisement; 21 heard about the study at an annual university health screening, 15 at a health fair, and 14 by word-of-mouth; it is unknown by which mode 23 employees inquired about the study. Of the 440 employees inquiring about the study, 204 were excluded for the following reasons: were not reachable (n = 103), did not meet inclusion criteria (n = 72), had schedule conflict (n = 22), declined to participate (n = 7). Two hundred thirty-six employees completed the telephone screening. Of these, 76 employees were excluded for the following reasons: 33 did not meet inclusion criteria, 33 declined to participate, and 10 were not reachable. One hundred sixty employees completed the screening appointment. During the enrollment phase, 82 employees were excluded: 79 employees did not meet inclusion criteria, and 3 declined to participate. Seventy-eight employees were randomized: 40 were allocated to the intervention, and 38 were allocated to usual care. At postintervention, 34 employees in the intervention group were included in the analysis; 1 participant did not complete the data collection, and 5 employees were lost to follow-up (2 refused communication, 1 was stressed because of weight gain, and 2 were caring for an ill family member). In the usual care group at postintervention, 34 employees were included in analyses; 2 employees were lost to follow-up because they refused communication, and 2 employees discontinued participation because they were unable to commit to the study. At 3-month follow-up, 35 intervention participants and 33 usual care participants were included in analyses (1 usual care participant discontinued participation).
Figure. Phases of the randomized controlled trial for the intervention and usual care (control) groups in a university worksite diabetes prevention study, Ohio, 2012–2014.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.