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