What should governments be doing to prevent diabetes throughout the life course?

Health systems and governments are increasingly required to implement measures that target at-risk populations to prevent noncommunicable diseases. In this review we lay out what governments should be doing to prevent diabetes throughout the life course. The following four target groups were used to structure the specific recommendations: (1) pregnant women and young families, (2) children and adolescents, (3) working age population, and (4) the elderly. The evidence to date supports the effectiveness of some known government policy measures, such as sugar taxes and regulatory measures in the (pre-)school setting for children and adolescents. Many of these appear to be more effective if they are part of a bundle of strategies and if they are supplemented by communication strategies. Although there is a current focus on strategies that target the individual, governments can make use of evidence-based population-level prevention strategies. More research and continuous evaluation of the overall and subgroup-specific effectiveness of policy strategies using high-quality longitudinal studies are needed

Evaluation and refinement of the PRESTARt tool for identifying 12-14 year olds at high lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to a clinicians assessment of risk: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundTraditionally Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) was associated with older age, but is now being increasingly diagnosed in younger populations due to the increasing prevalence of obesity and inactivity. We aimed to evaluate whether a tool developed for community use to identify adolescents at high lifetime risk of developing T2DM agreed with a risk assessment conducted by a clinician using data collected from five European countries. We also assessed whether the tool could be simplified.MethodsTo evaluate the tool we collected data from 636 adolescents aged 12–14 years from five European countries. Each participant’s data were then assessed by two clinicians independently, who judged each participant to be at either low or high risk of developing T2DM in their lifetime. This was used as the gold standard to which the tool was evaluated and refined.ResultsThe refined tool categorised adolescents at high risk if they were overweight/obese and had at least one other risk factor (High waist circumference, family history of diabetes, parental obesity, not breast fed, high sugar intake, high screen time, low physical activity and low fruit and vegetable intake). Of those found to be at high risk by the clinicians, 93% were also deemed high risk by the tool. The specificity shows that 67% of those deemed at low risk by the clinicians were also found to be a low risk by the tool.ConclusionsWe have evaluated a tool for identifying adolescents with risk factors associated with the development of T2DM in the future. Future work to externally validate the tool using prospective data including T2DM incidence is required.</div

School-based obesity prevention for busy low-income families : Organisational and personal barriers and facilitators to implementation.

BACKGROUND: Little research has targeted multiple-level barriers and facilitators in school-based parental support programmes. BackgroundLittle research has targeted multiple-level barriers and facilitators in school-based parental support programmes. This qualitative study aims to describe barriers and facilitators, at organisational and personal levels, that teachers and parents in disadvantaged settings in Sweden perceived as influencing the implementation of the Healthy School Start II (HSS II) intervention.MethodsData collection, analysis and interpretation were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Focus groups and interviews were conducted with 14 parents and ten teachers within the HSS II trial. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis in a deductive step using the three CFIR domains-inner and outer setting, and personal characteristics-followed by an inductive analysis.ResultsThe theme 'being on the same page-getting burdened teachers and parents to work on common ground' was found. Among teachers, barriers and facilitators were related to the structure of the schoolwork and curriculum, involvement from other staff and school management, the practical school workday, perception of high family needs but low parental interest, insufficient resources in the families, and teacher's personal knowledge, interests, and opinions about health and food. For parents, barriers and facilitators were related to the perceived family needs and resources, parents' health knowledge, consensus about healthy behaviours and ability to cooperate, and school involvement in health issues and the intervention.ConclusionInterventions should facilitate parents' and teachers' work on common ground, with activities suitable for a stressful and burdensome workday and everyday life. This could be achieved by integrating evidence-based practices within school routines, and including activities that are practicable despite parents' stressful lives, and that increase parental consensus about promoting health. Strategies to increase involvement of parents in families with high needs are necessary. Also, this study suggests an expansion of the CFIR to capture the interface between different micro-level organisations, and account for several delivering/receiving organisations.This qualitative study aims to describe barriers and facilitators, at organisational and personal levels, that teachers and parents in disadvantaged settings in Sweden perceived as influencing the implementation of the Healthy School Start II (HSS II) intervention. METHODS: Data collection, analysis and interpretation were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Focus groups and interviews were conducted with 14 parents and ten teachers within the HSS II trial. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis in a deductive step using the three CFIR domains-inner and outer setting, and personal characteristics-followed by an inductive analysis. RESULTS: The theme 'being on the same page-getting burdened teachers and parents to work on common ground' was found. Among teachers, barriers and facilitators were related to the structure of the schoolwork and curriculum, involvement from other staff and school management, the practical school workday, perception of high family needs but low parental interest, insufficient resources in the families, and teacher's personal knowledge, interests, and opinions about health and food. For parents, barriers and facilitators were related to the perceived family needs and resources, parents' health knowledge, consensus about healthy behaviours and ability to cooperate, and school involvement in health issues and the intervention. CONCLUSION: Interventions should facilitate parents' and teachers' work on common ground, with activities suitable for a stressful and burdensome workday and everyday life. This could be achieved by integrating evidence-based practices within school routines, and including activities that are practicable despite parents' stressful lives, and that increase parental consensus about promoting health. Strategies to increase involvement of parents in families with high needs are necessary. Also, this study suggests an expansion of the CFIR to capture the interface between different micro-level organisations, and account for several delivering/receiving organisations