Developing mHealth Interventions with Implementation in Mind: Application of the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) Preparation Phase to Diabetes Prevention Programming (Preprint)

UNSTRUCTURED With thousands of mHealth solutions on the market, patients and healthcare providers struggle to identify which solution to use/prescribe. The lack of evidence-based mHealth solutions may be due to limited research on intervention development and continued use of traditional research methods for mHealth evaluation. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) is a framework which aids in developing interventions which are economical, affordable, scalable, and effective (EASE). MOST Phase I highlights the importance of formative intervention development, a stage often overlooked and rarely published. The aim of MOST Phase I is to identify candidate intervention components, create a conceptual model, and define the optimization objective. While MOST sets these three targets, the framework itself does not provide robust guidance on how to conduct quality research within Phase I, and what steps can be taken to identify potential intervention components, develop the conceptual model, and achieve intervention EASE with the implementation context in mind. To advance the applicability of MOST within the field of implementation science, this paper provides an account of the methods used to develop an mHealth intervention. Specifically, we provide a comprehensive example of how to achieve the goals of MOST Phase I by outlining the formative development of an mHealth prompting intervention within a diabetes prevention program. Additionally, recommendations are proposed for future researchers to conduct formative research on mHealth interventions with implementation in mind. Given its considerable reach, mHealth has the potential to positively impact public health by decreasing implementation costs and improving accessibility. MOST is well-suited for the efficient development and optimization of mHealth interventions. By using an implementation-focused lens and outlining the steps in developing an mHealth intervention using MOST Phase I, this work can may guide future intervention developers towards maximizing the impact of mHealth outside of the research laboratory.

Fitness Facility Staff Can Be Trained to Deliver a Motivational Interviewing-Informed Diabetes Prevention Program

Background: Training programs must be evaluated to understand whether the training was successful at enabling staff to implement a program with fidelity. This is especially important when the training has been translated to a new context. The aim of this community case study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the in-person Small Steps for Big Changes training for fitness facility staff using the 4-level Kirkpatrick training evaluation model.Methods: Eight staff were trained to deliver the motivational interviewing-informed Small Steps for Big Changes program for individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Between August 2019 and March 2020, 32 clients enrolled in the program and were allocated to one of the eight staff. The Kirkpatrick 4-level training evaluation model was used to guide this research. Level one assessed staff satisfaction to the training on a 5-point scale. Level two assessed staff program knowledge and motivational interviewing knowledge/skills. Level three assessed staff behaviors by examining their use of motivational interviewing with each client. Level four assessed training outcomes using clients' perceived satisfaction with their staff and basic psychological needs support both on 7-point scales.Results: Staff were satisfied with the training (M = 4.43; SD = 0.45; range = 3.86–4.71). All learning measures demonstrated high post-training scores that were retained at implementation follow-up. Staff used motivational interviewing skills in practice and delivered the program at a client-centered level (≥6; M = 6.34; SD = 0.83; range = 3.75–7.80). Overall, clients perceived staff supported their basic psychological needs (M = 6.55; SD = 0.64; range = 6.17–6.72) and reported high staff satisfaction scores (M = 6.88; SD = 0.33; range = 6–7).Conclusion: The Small Steps for Big Changes training was successful and fitness facility staff delivered a motivational interviewing-informed program. While not all staff operated at a client-centered level, clients perceived their basic psychological needs to be supported. Findings support the training for future scale-up sites. Community fitness staff represent a feasible resource through which to run evidence-based counseling programs.

Health Care Providers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices and the Association With Referrals to the National Diabetes Prevention Program Lifestyle Change Program

Purpose To examine how health care providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices affect their referrals to the National Diabetes Prevention Program. Design Cross-sectional, self-report data from DocStyles—a web-based survey Setting USA Sample Practicing family practitioners, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and internists, n = 1,503. Measures Questions regarding health care providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices and their referrals to the National Diabetes Prevention Program. Analysis Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to calculate predictive margins and the average marginal effect. Results Overall, 15.2% of health care providers ( n = 1,503) reported making a referral to the National Diabetes Prevention Program. Health care providers were more likely to make referrals if they were familiar with the program (average marginal effect = 36.0%, 95% CI: 29.1%, 42.8%), reported knowledge of its availability (average marginal effect=49.1%, 95% CI: 40.2%, 57.9%), believed it was important to make referrals to the program (average marginal effect = 20.7%, 95% CI: 14.4%, 27.0%), and used electronic health records to manage patients with prediabetes (average marginal effect = 9.1%, 95% CI: 5.4%, 12.7%). Health care providers’ demographic characteristics had little to no association with making referrals. Conclusion Making referrals to the National Diabetes Prevention Program was associated with health care providers’ knowledge of the program and its reported availability, their attitudes, and their use of the electronic health record system to manage patients with prediabetes.

Metabolic Changes After a 24-Week Soccer-Based Adaptation of the Diabetes Prevention Program in Hispanic Males: A One-Arm Pilot Clinical Trial

Aims: One third of the U.S. adult population is estimated to have obesity-associated prediabetes. Hispanics have a 50% higher type 2 diabetes death rate compared to non-Hispanic whites, yet low participation in lifestyle change programs, making this subgroup an important target for prevention. Our objective was to determine the feasibility and the effects of an intervention implementing the Center for Disease Control and Prevention National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) plus recreational soccer (RS) in Hispanic men.Methods: Overweight and obese Hispanic men, aged 30–57 years with prediabetes at screening were recruited (n = 41). Trained soccer coaches led 30-min facilitated discussion of the NDPP modules after each RS session, with two sessions per week for 12 weeks and once per week for the following 12 weeks. The 1-h RS sessions followed the Football Fitness curriculum. Assessments included body mass index, waist circumference, bioelectrical impedance analysis (InBody 270), blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and validated physical fitness tests. Multilevel mixed models assessed the outcomes as a function of time and cohort and incorporated an unstructured covariance structure to examine the changes from baseline to 24 weeks. All analyses were conducted as intent-to-treat using SAS v 9.4.Results: Hispanic males (n = 41; mean age 41.7 [0.1] years) were obese at baseline (mean BMI 32.7, standard error of mean [0.7], mean weight 93.9 [2.2] kg). Attendance rate was 65% overall at 12 weeks but differed between cohorts. Five mild injuries occurred over the trial. After 24 weeks of the NDPP+RS intervention, there were significant decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (%change −4.7[SE 2.4]; 95% CI [−11.5, −1.7] and −6.1 [1.7] mmHg; [−9.6, −2.6], respectively), HbA1c (−0.2 [0.1]; [−0.3, −0.1]), Despite significant reductions in weight (−3.8 [0.7]; [−5.2, −2.5]), waist circumference (−6.6 [0.7] cm; [−8.0, −5.1]), body fat % (−1.9 [0.5]; [−2.8, −1.0]), lean body mass was preserved (−0.9 [0.3]; [−1.6, −0.2]).Conclusion: A 24-week soccer-based adaptation of the Diabetes Prevention Program is safe and feasible among middle-aged Latino men.

How is the Behavior Change Technique Content of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Program Understood by Participants? A Qualitative Study of Fidelity, With a Focus on Receipt

Background The National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is a nationally implemented behavioral intervention for adults at high risk of developing Type 2 diabetes in England, based on a program specification that stipulates inclusion of 19 specific behavior change techniques (BCTs). Previous work has identified drift in fidelity from these NHS England specifications through providers’ program manuals, training, and delivery, especially in relation to BCTs targeting self-regulatory processes. Purpose This qualitative study investigates intervention receipt, i.e., how the self-regulatory BCT content of the NHS-DPP is understood by participants. Methods Twenty participants from eight NHS-DPP locations were interviewed; topics included participants’ understanding of self-monitoring of behavior, goal setting, feedback, problem solving, and action planning. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using the framework method. Results There was a wide variation in understanding among participants for some BCTs, as well as between BCTs. Participants described their understanding of “self-monitoring of behaviors” with ease and valued BCTs focused on outcomes (weight loss). Some participants learned how to set appropriate behavioral goals. Participants struggled to recall “action planning” or “problem solving” or found these techniques challenging to understand, unless additional support was provided (e.g., through group discussion). Conclusions Participants’ lack of understanding of some self-regulatory BCTs is consistent with the drift across fidelity domains previously identified from NHS design specifications. Behavioral interventions should build-in necessary support for participants to help them understand some BCTs such as action planning and problem solving. Alternatively, these self-regulatory BCTs may be intrinsically difficult to use for this population.