Participant
|
* High attendance rates in our study compared to others [11,12,22]
|
* Use of organisational elements that can contribute to participant compliance:
|
|
|
- Immediately plan next appointment during consultations
|
|
|
- Persons who do not show up are contacted by the practice assistant
|
|
|
- Assign 1provider in the practice who is responsible for coordination / planning of the consultations.
|
|
* Lack of participant motivation experienced by providers as a major barrier for intervention implementation
|
* Stimulate participant motivation to change unhealthy habits:
|
|
|
- In-depth analysis of (barriers for ) participant behavioural change to reveal starting points for refining intervention content[5,6,23].
|
|
|
- More attention for environmental factors promoting unhealthy behaviour[24]
|
|
|
- Counselling based on shared decision making to enlarge participant empowerment[25]
|
|
|
- More effort into stimulating participants to engage social support[5,23,26].
|
Professional
|
* Lower participant satisfaction with GP guidance than with nurse practitioner guidance.
|
* Role for the nurse practitioner as the key player in guiding participant lifestyle change [29,30]
|
|
* Lower self-efficacy of GPs regarding dietary counselling compared to nurse practittioners.
|
|
|
* Lack of specialistic nutritional knowledge reported by nurse practitioners
|
* Introduce elements to fill gaps in knowledge and/or skills of nurse practitioners
|
|
* Nearly 40 % of the nurse practitioners report limited self-efficacy for dietary counselling
|
- Referral to skilled supporting staff, like dieticians[5]
|
|
|
- Extend motivational interviewing course towards a specialized prevention manager training[31], including modules to enlarge the knowledge of nutrition and physical activity in diabetes prevention.
|
Organisation
|
* Lack of counselling time and financial reimbursement regarded by providers as major bottlenecks for intervention implementation
|
* Consider and investigate prevention strategies that could increase cost-effectiveness [6], such as:
|
|
* Modest diabetes risk reduction compared to studies in experimental settings [8,11,12,26].
|
- More stringent criteria for participant inclusion, based on risk[6,11]and / or motivation[27]
|
|
|
- Group-counselling[8-11]
|
|
|
- A more tailor-made or patient-centred intervention structure[6,35]
|
|
|
- Integration of lifestyle interventions for different disorders[36] |