Skip to main content

Table 3 Scoring for each PIPE element by study

From: A systematic review of real-world diabetes prevention programs: learnings from the last 15 years

Author Year

Study

Penetration

Implementation

Participation

Effectiveness

Frequency

Duration

Fidelity

Success rate

Weight loss

Risk reduction (absolute/relative)

Mensink et al. 2003 [35]

SLIM

High

Low

High

Low

Low

NAC

Moderate

High

Kosaka et al. 2005 [62]

Japanese DPP

NAC

Low

High

Moderate

NAC

NAC

Moderate

High

Oldroyd et al. 2006 [63]

Newcastle LI

NAC

Moderate

High

NAC

Low

NAC

Low

NR

Absetz et al. 2007 [41]

GOAL LIT

NAC

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

High

NAC

Low

NR

Bo et al. 2007 [36]

Italian Trial

High

Low

High

High

Low

NAC

Low

High

Davis-Smith et al. 2007 [39]

DPP (church-based)

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

NAC

High

NR

Laatikainen et al. 2007 [64]

GGT

NAC

Low

Moderate

High

Low

NAC

Moderate

NR

Ackermann et al. 2008 [65]

DEPLOY

NAC

High

High

Moderate

Low

NAC

High

NR

Boltri et al. 2008 [66]

DPP (church-based)

NAC

High

Low

Moderate

Low

NAC

Low

NR

Payne et al. 2008 [67]

BDPPI

NAC

High

High

Moderate

NAC

Moderate

Moderate

NR

Kramer et al. 2009 [68]

GLB (2007 – 2009)

NAC

High

Moderate

Moderate

Low

NAC

High

NR

Kulzer et al. 2009 [69]

PREDIAS

NAC

Moderate

Low

Moderate

NAC

NAC

Moderate

NR

Penn et al. 2009 [70]

EDIPS- Newcastle

NAC

Moderate

High

NAC

Low

NAC

Low

High

Almeida et al. 2010 [71]

Colorado weight loss intervention

NAC

Low

Low

NAC

Low

Low

Low

NR

Makrilakis et al. 2010 [72]

DE-PLAN Greece

NAC

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

NAC

Low

NR

Parikh et al. 2010 [73]

Project HEED

NAC

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Moderate

NR

Vanderwood et al. 2010 [45]

Montana CDDP

NAC

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

High

NR

Vermunt et al. 2010 [74]

APHRODITE

NAC

Moderate

High

NAC

Low

NAC

NAC

NR

Boltri et al. 2011 [75]

DPP (church-based)

NAC

Low (2 churches)

Low

Moderate

Low

NAC

Low

NR

High (3 churches)

Gilis-Januszewska et al. 2011 [76]

DE-PLAN Poland

NAC

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Low

NR

Katula et al. 2011 [77]

HELP PD

NAC

High

High

High

Low

NAC

High

NR

Kumanyika et al. 2011 [48]

Think Health!

NAC

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Low

NR

Nilsen et al. 2011 [42]

Nilsen et al.

NAC

High

High

NAC

High

Moderate

NAC

NR

Penn et al. 2011 [43]

NLNY

NAC

High

Moderate

Low

High

Low

Low

NR

Ruggiero et al. 2011 [78]

HLP

NAC

High

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

NR

Sakane et al. 2011 [79]

Japanese Study

NAC

Moderate

High

Moderate

Low

NAC

Low

High

Costa et al. 2012 [40]

DE-PLAN-CAT

Low

Low

High

NAC

Low

NAC

Low

High

Janus et al. 2012 [46]

pMDPS

NAC

Low

Moderate

High

High

NAC

Moderate

Moderate

Kanaya et al. 2012 [50]

LWBW

NAC

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

NAC

Low

NR

Lakerveld et al. 2012 [37]

Hoorn Prevention Study

High

Moderate

Moderate

High

Low

NAC

NAC

NR

Ockene et al. 2012 [80]

LLDPP

NAC

High

Moderate

Moderate

Low

NAC

Low

NR

Piatt et al. 2012 [81]

GLB (2005–2008)

NAC

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

NAC

NR

Jiang et al. 2013 [82]

SDPI-DP

NAC

High

Moderate

Moderate

Low

NAC

Moderate

NR

Ma J et al. 2013 [38]

E-LITE

High

High

High

High

Low

High

High

NR

Duijzer et al. 2014 [49]

SLIMMER

NAC

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

NAC

Moderate

NR

Sepah et al. 2014 [47]

Prevent

NAC

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

High

NAC

NR

Zyriax et al. 2014 [34]

DELIGHT

High

High

High

Low

Low

NAC

NAC

NR

Savas et al. 2015 [44]

IGT Care Call

NAC

Low

Moderate

High

High

NAC

Moderate

NR

  1. Details on the scoring of all included studies based on the elements of the PIPE Impact Metric framework are provided in Additional file 2: Table S4–Table S7
  2. NAC not able to calculate, NR not reported