Skip to main content
NCBI home page
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Med. 2021 May 11;149:106614. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106614

Facilitators to referrals to CDC’s National Diabetes Prevention Program in primary care practices and pharmacies: DocStyles 2016–2017

Kunthea Nhim a,*,1, Tamkeen Khan b, Stephanie Gruss a, Gregory Wozniak b, Kate Kirley b, Patricia Schumacher a, Ann Albright a
PMCID: PMC8562779  NIHMSID: NIHMS1751791  PMID: 33989676

Abstract

Despite evidence of the effectiveness of behavioral change interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention, health care provider referrals to organizations offering the National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) lifestyle change program (LCP) remain suboptimal. This study examined facilitators of LCP referrals among primary care providers and pharmacists (providers). We analyzed data on 1956 providers from 2016 to 2017 DocStyles web-based surveys. Pearson chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were used for bivariate associations between facilitators, provider characteristics, and their self-reported referral and bi-directional referral (where they received patient status updates back from the LCPs) to an LCP. Multiple logistic regressions were used to estimate the effects of facilitators to referral practices, controlling for providers’ characteristics. Geocoding was done at the street level for in-person, public LCP class locations and at the zip code level for survey respondents to create a density measure for LCP availability within 10 miles. Overall, 21% of providers referred their patients with prediabetes to LCPs, and 6.4% engaged in bi-directional referral. Provider practices that established clinical-community linkages (CCLs) with LCPs (AOR = 4.88), used electronic health records (EHRs) to manage patients (AOR = 2.94), or practiced within 10 miles of an in-person, public LCP class location (AOR = 1.49) were more likely to refer. Establishing CCLs with LCPs (AOR = 8.59) and using EHRs (AOR = 1.86) were also facilitators of bi-directional referral. This study highlights the importance of establishing CCLs between provider settings and organizations offering the National DPP LCP, increasing use of EHRs to manage patients, and increasing availability of in-person LCP class locations near provider practices.

Keywords: Diabetes prevention program, Type 2 diabetes prevention, Referral, Bi-directional referral, Clinical-community linkages, Electronic health records

1. Introduction

In the US, more than 34 million adults (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, of which 90–95% is type 2 diabetes (CDC, 2020). In 2017, diabetes was the seventh leading cause of death in the US (CDC, 2017) and was estimated to cost over $300 billion in total (American Diabetes Association, 2018). In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates as many as 88 million US adults have prediabetes, but only about 15.3% are aware of their health condition (CDC, 2020). Prediabetes is defined as blood glucose levels that are elevated, though not high enough to be diagnosed as type 2 diabetes (CDC, 2017). Prediabetes can lead to type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke; however, it is reversible (CDC, 2020). Multiple studies, including the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), demonstrated that an intensive lifestyle change program (LCP) focusing on healthy eating, physical activity, and stress reduction is effective in preventing or delaying onset of type 2 diabetes among people with prediabetes or at high risk (Crandall et al., 2008; Knowler et al., 2002; Lindstrom et al., 2006; Tuomilehto et al., 2001; Zhuo et al., 2012). In addition, many translational studies showed that an intensive LCP is effective and feasible in community settings for type 2 diabetes prevention (Ali et al., 2012; Dunkley et al., 2014; Fianu et al., 2016; Van Name et al., 2016; Vojta et al., 2013).

In response to this compelling evidence, CDC established the National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) in 2010. The National DPP is a partnership of public and private organizations working together to build a nationwide delivery system for the LCP proven effective for type 2 diabetes prevention in adults with prediabetes. The goal of the National DPP is to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes by increasing the supply of quality program delivery sites, increasing demand for the program among people at risk, increasing referrals from health care providers, and increasing coverage among public and private payers (Albright and Gregg, 2013). The National DPP LCP is a yearlong, structured lifestyle intervention consisting of a minimum of 16 weekly sessions in months 1–6 and a minimum of 6 monthly sessions in months 7–12 (CDC, 2018). The program can be offered in-person, online, via distance learning, or through any combination of these modalities (CDC, 2018). To assure quality and fidelity to scientific evidence, CDC also established the Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP), the quality assurance arm of the National DPP. Through the DPRP, CDC recognizes organizations that successfully deliver the yearlong LCP consistent with national quality standards (CDC, 2018). As of September 2020, there were over 1700 CDC-recognized organizations offering the National DPP LCP in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other US territories and freely associated states (CDC, 2020). However, there are many local areas with a high burden of prediabetes with few or no programs, and referrals from health care providers to the program remain suboptimal.

A study of health care providers’ attitudes and behaviors toward prediabetes screening and treatment options showed low rates of prediabetes screening and referrals to appropriate behavioral interventions (Mainous 3rd et al., 2016). In addition, awareness of and familiarity with the National DPP LCP among providers remains low (Nhim et al., 2018). Gaps in providers’ knowledge also contribute to inadequate diagnosis of prediabetes and referral to diabetes prevention interventions (Tseng et al., 2019). However, providers with positive attitudes toward prediabetes as a diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines and prescribe treatment to patients (Mainous 3rd et al., 2016). Awareness of the National DPP LCP also increases the likelihood providers will screen for prediabetes and refer patients to an LCP (Nhim et al., 2018). A recent study on patient and clinician perceptions of prediabetes in primary care found that clear communication about prediabetes risk, treatment information, and linkage to CDC-recognized organizations offering the National DPP LCP as the suggested treatment plan facilitated the referral process (Roper et al., 2019). Providers who used an electronic health record (EHR) were twice as likely to refer patients with prediabetes to an LCP compared to those who did not use an EHR (Nhim et al., 2018). Practices that used retrospective queries via EHRs to identify eligible Medicare patients with prediabetes referred ten times more eligible patients than those who used a point-of-care method alone (Holliday et al., 2019).

A previous study found that primary care providers (PCPs) who practiced in areas with a high ratio of in-person National DPP LCP classes to total PCPs were almost twice as likely to refer patients with prediabetes to an LCP (Nhim et al., 2018). A study on the influence of distance on utilization of outpatient mental health aftercare found that patients who travelled 10 miles or less, compared with those who lived 50+ miles away, were more likely to obtain mental health aftercare following inpatient substance abuse treatment (Schmitt et al., 2003). Another study found that 60% of patients travelled less than 10 miles to opioid treatment programs, and only 6% travelled 50–200 miles to the treatment programs (Rosenblum et al., 2011). Other studies found that transportation is a significant barrier to primary care services (Syed et al., 2013), and geographic access to health care influences both health care utilization and disease burden (Billi et al., 2007; McLafferty, 2003). However, we are unaware of information on the impact of distance from PCP practices to National DPP LCP class locations on referrals.

For this study, we define a clinical-community linkage (CCL) as a formal relationship between clinical care organizations and community-based organizations involving defined roles and procedures associated with the management of health conditions or risk factors within a defined patient population. Creating linkages between primary care practices and community resources has the potential to benefit both patients and providers and reduce the burden associated with poor health behaviors (Etz et al., 2008; Fishleder et al., 2018). Clinical-community linkages have also been shown to facilitate type 2 diabetes prevention and other public health interventions. One study found that delivering diabetes prevention services based on a collaboration of community pharmacists with general practices was key to providing integrated primary care services (Katangwe, 2019). A scoping review paper showed the positive role community health workers played in promoting preventive care at a population level (Lohr et al., 2018).

In this study, bi-directional referral is defined as a system that facilitates referral information going from the health care provider or pharmacy to the community-based program/service and the return of information on patient participation and outcome data from the community-based program/service to the referring health care provider or pharmacy. Based on a CDC-funded project in collaboration with the American Medical Association (AMA) and YMCA of the USA to build and implement a bi-directional referral communication pathway with existing health care partners, we found an increase in referrals from providers, compared with baseline referrals (CDC, 2019). The project also found one of the incentives for providers to make referrals to prevention programs like the National DPP LCP is to show that the program provides value-based quality for their practices (CDC, 2019). The opportunity for an LCP to provide information back to providers on patients’ health outcomes, such as weight loss, helps incentivize providers to make referrals. In addition, there is some anecdotal evidence from recipients of CDC’s cooperative agreement funding that establishing bi-directional referrals with health care providers or systems facilitated or motivated providers to make referrals to the LCP. However, there is limited evidence in the literature on facilitators for bi-directional referral from the providers’ perspective. This study is one of the few that attempts to study this topic and compare the differences among providers when looking at provider-level referrals vs. the bi-directional referral capabilities of their practices.

This study aims to examine facilitators for PCPs and pharmacists (providers) regarding referring patients with prediabetes and engaging in bi-directional referrals with CDC-recognized organizations offering the National DPP LCP. We hypothesized that providers who reported having CCLs with these organizations, using an EHR to manage patients, and being located within 10 miles of an in-person LCP class were more likely to make referrals and engage in bi-directional referral (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual Model.

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National DPP LCP: National Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle change program.

2. Methods

2.1. Study sample

The primary data sources used for this study were the 2016 and 2017 waves of the DocStyles cross-sectional web-based survey administered by Porter Novelli.2 The survey population included a main sample of PCPs and additional samples of other specialties drawn from SERMO’s Global Medical Panel.3 Physicians and nurse practitioners were included if they had been practicing for ≥3 years in the US, were actively seeing patients, and were working in an individual or group outpatient practice or an inpatient practice. Panelists who did not participate in the previous year’s DocStyles survey were prioritized above previous respondents. Quotas were set to reach 1000 primary care physicians, 250 pediatricians, 250 obstetricians/gynecologists, 250 nurse practitioners, 250 oncologists, 150 retail pharmacists, and 100 hospital pharmacists per each survey wave. Of the 9735 health professionals invited to participate in 2016 and 2017, 4266 (43.8%) completed the entire survey (Fig. 2). A subset of 3265 PCPs (physicians, internists, and nurse practitioners; n = 2765) and pharmacists (n = 500) were asked the diabetes-related questions. For PCPs who were respondents in both 2016 and 2017 (n = 250), only their responses from 2017 were included to assess providers’ most recent behaviors toward referral and bi-directional referral to the National DPP LCP. PCPs and pharmacists who had not heard of the National DPP LCP (n = 1059) were excluded from all analyses to avoid confusion with providers who may not have differentiated between the National DPP LCP and other similar programs. Data from 1956 unique respondents (1635 PCPs and 321 pharmacists) who had heard of the National DPP LCP were included in descriptive and bivariate analysis; of these, 1717 who reported their practice/pharmacy used EHRs were included in the multivariate analyses (Fig. 2). No individual identifiers were included in the dataset, and this study was deemed exempt by CDC’s Institutional Review Board.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Flow chart for survey sample.

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; EHRs: electronic health records; National DPP LCP: National Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle change program; PCPs: primary care providers.

A second data source, the CDC’s DPRP registry, provided information on the locations of classes offered by CDC-recognized organizations from June 2016 to August 2017(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program, 2020). Geocoding was done at the street level address for in-person, publicly available LCP class locations from the DPRP database. This was combined with the zip code level centroid for the DocStyles survey respondents to create a density measure for LCP availability within a specified distance radius from providers’ practices.

2.2. Measures

The DocStyles survey instrument was designed with multiple sub-parts based on providers’ specialties and provides insight into their attitudes and counseling behaviors concerning a variety of health issues, allowing us to assess their use of available health information sources. The detailed survey questions used for this study are provided in Appendix A. The diabetes section provided a brief description of the National DPP LCP, then subsequently asked providers about their referral behavior with this question: “Have you referred your patients to an in-person or online CDC-recognized lifestyle change program to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes like the one described previously?”. Providers who reported using EHRs were asked if their EHR systems were used to identify and manage patients with prediabetes. Then, after defining a bi-directional referral process, providers were asked the following question: “Which services listed below best describe clinical services provided within your practice/pharmacy?”. Those who selected the response option “bi-directional referrals to CDC-recognized lifestyle change programs” were categorized as engaging in bi-directional referral.

Distance from practice zip code to the nearest in-person LCP class was dichotomized as 1 if the nearest in-person publicly available class was within 10 miles of the provider setting zip code, and 0 if no in-person LCP classes were within 10 miles. This 10-mile threshold was selected based on literature on availability and distance from health care services and uptake of services. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken around the reference groups of 10, 20, and 50 miles, and results across all reference groups were not significantly different for any long-distance range categories defined beyond a local 10-mile range (results not reported).

2.3. Statistical analysis

Pearson chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess bivariate associations between provider-level characteristics, facilitators, and providers’ self-reported behavior regarding referral and bi-directional referral to CDC-recognized organizations offering the National DPP LCP. Multiple logistic regressions were used to estimate the effects of facilitators on referral practices conditional on other factors, including provider demographics, provider setting characteristics, and the distance to the nearest LCP. The adjusted odds ratios (AORs) in relation to a reference category were reported with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were conducted using SAS, version 9.4.

3. Results

Table 1 provides bivariate associations between key facilitators and characteristics of providers and their referral practices. Overall, 21.0% of providers reported that they referred their patients with prediabetes to a CDC-recognized organization offering the National DPP LCP in-person or online, and 6.4% reported their provider settings engaged in bi-directional referral with an LCP delivery organization. Most providers were male (61.6%) and non-Hispanic White (66.0%) and had practiced medicine or pharmacy for <15 years (57.2%). The majority of provider practices had not established CCLs with LCPs (88.1%) and did not practice within 10 miles of an in-person, publicly available LCP class (89.4%). Only 47.3% of providers reported their practices used EHRs to manage patients with prediabetes.

Table 1.

Bivariate association between facilitators, provider-level characteristics and behaviors regarding their referrals, and bi-directional referrals to the National DPP LCP.

Provider-level characteristics Total providers N (%) Provider-level referral Provider-level bi-directional referral
Yes n (%) No/Don’ t know n (%) Yes n (%) No/Don’t know n (%)
Total respondents 1956 (100) 410 (21.0) 1546 (79.0) 125 (6.4) 1831 (93.6)
Facilitators Clinical-community linkages with LCPs
  Yes 233 (11.9) *** 127 (31.0) *** 106 (6.9) *** 61 (48.8) *** 172 (9.4)) ***
  No/Don’t know 1723 (88.1) 283 (69.0) 1440 (93.1) 64 (51.2) 1659 (90.6)
 Used EHR to manage patients with prediabetes
  Yes 812 (47.3) * 257 (70.0) *** 555 (41.1) *** 80 (67.0) *** 732 (45.7) ***
  No/Don’ t know 905 (52.7) 110 (30.0) 795 (58.9) 36 (31.0) 869 (54.3)
 Had 1+ LCPsa within 10 miles of practice zip code
  Yes 207 (10.6) *** 60 (14.6) * 147 (9.5) * 16 (12.8) 191 (10.4)
  No 1749 (89.4) 350 (85.4) 1399 (90.5) 109 (87.2) 1640 (89.6)
PCPs’ and Pharmacists’ characteristics:
 Gender
  Male 1204 (61.6) *** 249 (60.7) 955 (61.8) 76 (60.8) 1128 (61.6)
  Female 752 (38.5) 161 (39.3) 591 (38.2) 49 (39.2) 703 (38.4)
 Race/ethnicity Hispanic 81 (4.1) *** 23 (5.6) 58 (3.8) 7 (5.6) 74 (4.1)
  Non-Hispanic Black 61 (3.1) 13 (3.2) 48 (3.1) 6 (4.8) 55 (3.0)
  Non-Hispanic Otherb 523 (26.7) 121 (29.5) 402 (26.0) 43 (34.4) 480 (26.2)
  Non-Hispanic White 1291 (66.0) 253 (61.7) 1038 (67.1) 69 (55.2) 1222 (66.7)
 Provider type
  Primary care providers 1635 (83.6) *** 343 (83.7) 1292 (83.6) 121 (96.8) *** 1514 (82.7) ***
  Pharmacists 321 (16.4) 67 (16.3) 254 (16.4) 4 (3.2) 317 (17.3)
 Years of practice
  < 15 years 1119 (57.2) *** 231 (56.3) 888 (57.4) 63 (50.4) 1056 (57.7)
  15+ years 837 (42.8) 179 (43.7) 658 (42.6) 62 (49.6) 775 (42.3)
 Patient household income
  < $49,999 665 (34.0) 130 (31.7) 535 (34.6) 29 (23.2) * 636 (34.7) *
  $50,000–$99,999 650 (33.2) 135 (32.9) 515 (33.3) 46 (36.8) 604 (33.0)
  $100,000 or more 641 (32.8) 145 (35.4) 496 (32.1) 50 (40.0) 591 (32.3)
Open in a new tab

Note: Boldface indicates statistical significance (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < using Pearson Chi-Square or Fisher’s Exact Test of difference between each category of independent variables among total PCPs and providers who referred patients with prediabetes or whose practice/pharmacy engaged in bi-directional referral with a CDC-recognized organization offering the National DPP LCP vs. providers who did not.

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; EHRs: electronic health records; LCP: National DPP lifestyle change program; PCPs: primary care providers (family practitioners, internists, and nurse practitioners).

a

In-person publicly available national DPP LCP class locations.

b

Non-Hispanic other race/ethnicity includes participants self-reporting as multiracial, non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native, and other race.

There were significant differences in the proportion of providers who referred patients to organizations offering the National DPP LCP vs. those who did not refer based on having established CCLs with the LCPs (31.0% of those who referred had established CCLs vs. 6.9% of those who did not refer); using EHRs to manage patients with prediabetes (70.0% vs. 41.1%); and practicing within 10 miles of an in-person, publicly available LCP class (14.6% vs. 9.5%). There were no significant differences in providers’ gender, race/ethnicity, provider type, years of practice, or patient household income between providers who did and did not refer patients.

Differences in the proportion of respondents whose practices engaged in bi-directional referral with an LCP vs. those that did not were seen based on the establishment of CCLs with LCPs (48.8% vs. 9.4%), use of EHRs to manage patients with prediabetes (67.0% vs. 45.7%), and patient household incomes (23.2% vs 34.7% for < $49,999; 36.8% vs. 33.0% for $50,000–$99,999; and 40.0% vs. 32.3% for ≥ $100,000). There were also significant differences in the proportion of providers practicing bi-directional referral based on provider type (96.8% vs. 82.7% among PCPs and 3.2% vs. 17.3% among pharmacists). There were no significant differences in the proportion of providers whose practices engaged in bi-directional referral with an LCP based on location within 10 miles of an LCP or by providers’ gender, race/ethnicity, or years of practice.

Table 2 shows the results of multivariate analyses with AORs and 95% CIs for provider-level referral and bi-directional referral. Among providers whose practices had established CCLs with LCPs, the odds of referring patients with prediabetes to an LCP were nearly 5 times more likely (AOR = 4.88; 95% CI = 3.58, 6.67), and the odds of engaging in bi-directional referral were 8 times more likely (AOR = 8.59; 95% CI = 5.66, 13.03), compared with those that did not establish CCLs with LCPs. Providers who used EHRs to manage patients with prediabetes had significantly higher odds of referring patients to an LCP (AOR = 2.94; 95% CI = 2.27, 3.81) and engaging in bi-directional referrals with an LCP (AOR = 1.86; 95% CI = 1.21, 2.86). The odds of referring were significantly higher among providers who had an in-person publicly available LCP within 10 miles of their practice zip code (AOR = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.02, 2.17).

Table 2.

Impact of facilitators on provider-level and bi-directional referral to the National DPP LCP.

Provider-level referral (n = 1717) Bi-directional referral (n = 1717)
AOR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Facilitators:
 Clinical-community linkages with LCP
 Select 4.88 (3.58, 6.67) 8.59 (5.66, 13.03)
 Not select (ref) 1.00 1.00
 Used EHR to manage patients with prediabetes
 Yes 2.94 (2.27, 3.81) 1.86 (1.21, 2.86)
 No/Don’t know (ref) 1.00 1.00
 Had 1+ LCPsa within 10 miles of practice zip code
 Yes 1.49 (1.02, 2.17) 0.88 (0.47, 1.66)
 No (ref) 1.00 1.00
PCPs’ and Pharmacists’ characteristics:
 Gender
  Female 1.05 (0.81, 1.36) 1.11 (0.73, 1.69)
  Male (ref) 1.00 1.00
 Race/ethnicity
  Hispanic 1.13 (0.62, 2.06) 1.05 (0.38, 2.85)
  Non-Hispanic Black 1.01 (0.50, 2.04) 2.39 (0.91, 6.24)
  Non-Hispanic Otherb 1.11 (0.84, 1.46) 1.24 (0.80, 1.94)
  Non-Hispanic White (ref) 1.00 1.00
 Years practicing medicine or pharmacy
  ≥15 years 1.11 (0.86, 1.44) 1.35 (0.90, 2.03)
  <15 years (ref) 1.00 1.00
 Patient household income
  ≤$49,999 0.83 (0.61, 1.12) 0.60 (0.35, 1.00)
  $50,000–$99,999 0.83 (0.61, 1.12) 0.86 (0.54, 1.37)
  ≥$100,000 (ref) 1.00 1.00
Open in a new tab

Note:. Data are presented as adjusted odds ratios, AOR (95% CI).

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; EHRs: electronic health records; National DPP LCP: National Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle change program; PCPs: primary care providers (family practitioners, internists, and nurse practitioners).

a

In-person publicly available national DPP LCP class locations.

b

Non-Hispanic other race/ethnicity includes multiracial, non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native, or other race.

4. Discussion

This study utilized the 2016–2017 waves of the DocStyles survey to examine facilitators for PCPs and pharmacists regarding referring patients with prediabetes to the National DPP LCP. Although a previous study found increasing awareness of benefits of the National DPP LCP among providers was associated with increases in the likelihood of providers screening and referring patients to an LCP (Nhim et al., 2018), in the current study, only 21.0% of providers who were aware of the National DPP LCP made referrals, and 6.4% engaged in bi-directional referral. Our results suggest the referral facilitators for providers included having a practice that established CCLs with an LCP, using EHRs to manage patients with prediabetes, or being located within 10 miles of an in-person LCP. Similarly, providers who had established CCLs with local LCPs and used EHRs to manage patients with prediabetes were more likely to engage in bi-directional referral.

Results from the current study are consistent with previous studies. Valaitis et al., 2020, found primary clinical care and public community-based health collaborations transform health care and access to services by establishing clear goals, inclusive relationships, strong leadership and coordination, and effective communication; and through optimal use of resources. Lebrun et al., 2012, showed expansion of health center services through development of an internal referral system for services offered exclusively by each collaborative party. Ádány et al., 2013, suggested that a general practitioner-centered cluster model for community-oriented services could address local population needs through new services including health promotion activities, health status assessments, lifestyle counseling, medical risk assessments, and chronic care rehabilitation services. Finally, a literature review of collaboration between primary care and public health (Martin-Misener et al., 2012) found improved chronic disease management and disease control despite the challenges in establishing such collaboration. In our study, establishment of CCLs was the strongest facilitator, associated with nearly five times higher odds of referral and more than 8 times higher odds of bi-directional referral. A randomized effectiveness trial, Clinical-Community Linkages to Prevent Diabetes, describes the development and implementation of an integrated framework to guide clinical-community linkages for the prevention of type 2 diabetes (Ackermann, 2010). In addition, the National DPP Customer Service Center (https://nationaldppcsc.cdc.gov/s/) provides organizations easy access to training materials, toolkits, and videos and opportunities to ask questions and receive technical assistance on all aspects of the National DPP LCP, including how to engage providers for program referrals.

Our study showed that providers who used EHRs to manage patients with prediabetes had nearly three times the odds of referring patients with prediabetes to CDC-recognized organizations offering the National DPP LCP and nearly twice the odds of engaging in bi-directional referral with these organizations. Similarly, a study of a large health care system partnering with a local YMCA delivering an LCP showed referrals increased over time after fully integrating the program within the health system, including configuring EHR templates/reports and creating clinical referral workflows and training guides (Rehm et al., 2017). A recent randomized controlled trial aimed at increasing diabetes prevention program referrals in a primary care setting (Keck et al., 2020) showed that clinicians participating in a targeted intervention were three times more likely to refer patients with prediabetes to the program than a control group. Intervention activities included clinician education and use of a prediabetes clinician champion and a custom EHR report identifying patients with prediabetes. In addition, the AMA Prevent Diabetes website (http://amapreventdiabetes.org/tools-resources) provides tools and resources including how to implement bi-directional referrals and optimize the EHR (AMA, 2020).

Finally, we found that proximity to an in-person LCP was another facilitator of provider-level referrals, although not bi-directional referral. This is consistent with the literature related to the uptake of health care services relative to their availability or travel distance. One study on distance and health care utilization among the rural elderly found that increased distance from the provider reduced health care utilization, and suggested that distance to the provider is a surrogate for location between residents and their local community services (Nemet and Bailey, 2000). Proximity to a health care facility was also found to be one of many factors determining utilization (Arcury et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2000). A systematic literature review found that 77% of studies showed the farther patients lived from their health care facilities, the worse their health outcomes were (Kelly et al., 2016).

This current study has several limitations. First, the data collected were self-reported, so results may be subject to recall bias and social desirability bias. Second, the results may not be generalizable to all providers, since the sampling methodology provided a specific quota per item to limit the number of responses. Third, the analysis excluded providers who were not aware of the National DPP LCP, so results may overestimate the proportion of providers who made referrals. Finally, the diabetes survey questions were not asked of certain provider specialties who might also see patients with blood glucose levels in the prediabetes range and have an opportunity to refer to the National DPP LCP.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the importance of establishing CCLs between provider settings and CDC-recognized organizations offering the National DPP LCP. It emphasizes the benefits of increasing the use of EHRs to manage patients with prediabetes and increasing availability of in-person LCP class locations near PCPs’ and pharmacists’ practice settings and awareness of other LCP modalities (online, distance learning, or combination) to promote referrals to the program to prevent or delay onsite of type 2 diabetes among those at highest risk.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the members of the CDC/AMA Strategic Collaboration Workgroup, the CDC Engage Workgroup, and CDC’s National DPP Team who contributed to the design of the DocStyles survey and validation and aggregation of National DPP data used in this study. In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge Xuanping Zhang, LaShonda R. Hulbert, and the CDC-recognized organizations responsible for collecting and submitting the program data used in this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant funding from agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix A. DocStyles Survey Questions

A.1. 2016 and 2017 DocStyles Relevant Diabetes Survey Questions

PD01. The next section is about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recognized lifestyle change programs under the National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP). These year-long programs are designed to help people with prediabetes prevent or delay onset of type 2 diabetes by losing a small amount of weight. For the purposes of these questions, “your patient population” is defined as patients who have 1) been screened or tested positive for prediabetes using the CDC Prediabetes Screening Test (CDC Risk Test), the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Risk Test (ADA Risk Test), or one of the three recommended blood tests (fasting glucose, plasma glucose, or HbA1C); 2) been diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during a previous pregnancy; or 3) participated in an in-person or online CDC-recognized lifestyle change program.

Have you heard of the CDC-recognized lifestyle change program to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes?

Select one only.

1 Yes
2 No
3 Don’ t know
Open in a new tab

PD09. Have you referred your patients to an in-person or online CDC-recognized lifestyle change program to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes like the one described previously?

Select one only.

1 Yes
2 No
3 Don’ t know
Open in a new tab

EHRU. Do you use Electronic Health Records (EHRs) at your [INSERT practice/pharmacy]?

Select one only.

1 Yes
2 No
Open in a new tab

PD010. The next few questions are about prediabetes. Do you use the capabilities of your integrated Electronic Health Record System to identify and manage your patients with prediabetes?

Select one only.

1 Yes
2 No
3 Don’ t know
Open in a new tab

PD012. For the purposes of this survey, a clinical community linkage is defined as a formal relationship between clinical care organizations and community-based organizations involving defined roles and procedures associated with the management of health conditions or risk factors within a defined patient population. With which of the following partners have you established a clinical community linkage in the management of patients with prediabetes?

Select all that apply.

PD012a. Community-based organizations
PD012b. Community health workers
PD012c. CDC-recognized lifestyle change programs
PD012d. Fitness/wellness centers
PD012e. Places of worship
PD012f. Federally qualified health clinics/centers
PD012g. Health departments
PD012h. Others
PD012i. None of the above [SP]
Open in a new tab

PD013. For the purpose of this survey, bi-directional referral is defined as a system that facilitates referral information going from the health care provider or pharmacy to the community-based program/service and the return of information on patient participation and outcome data from the community-based program/service to the referring health care provider or pharmacy. Which services listed below best describe clinical services provided within your [INSERT practice/pharmacy]?

Select all that apply.

PD013a. Screening for prediabetes using the CDC Prediabetes risk test or ADA Diabetes risk test
PD013b. Testing for prediabetes using one of the three recommended blood tests (fasting glucose, plasma glucose, or HbA1C)
PD013c. Referring patients with prediabetes to a CDC-recognized lifestyle change program
PD013d. Bi-directional referrals for the management of chronic disease
PD013e. Bi-directional referrals to CDC-recognized lifestyle change programs
PD013f. Medication therapy management (MTM) services
PD013g. Medication synchronization program
PD013h. Medication refill reminder system
PD013i. Medication reconciliation at time of transition in care
PD013j. Don’ t know/not sure [SP]
PD013k. None of these [SP]
Open in a new tab

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC or the AMA.

Credit author statement

KN, TK, SG, GW, and KK contributed to the study conceptualization. KN and TK contributed to the data curation and formal analysis. PS and AA contributed to funding acquisition and supervision. All authors contributed to writing the original draft, and reviewing and editing the final version of the submitted manuscript.

2

Porter Novelli Public Services, a public relations firm with a specialty practice in health and social marketing, developed and administered the DocStyles survey instrument with technical guidance provided by federal public health agencies and other non-profit and for-profit clients.

3

SERMO is a global market research company Porter Novelli contracted with to verify their active panelists by telephone confirmation at place of work and send them invitations with a link to the web-based survey.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors claim no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Ackermann RT, 2010. Description of an integrated framework for building linkages among primary care clinics and community organizations for the prevention of type 2 diabetes: emerging themes from the CC-link study. Chronic illness 6 (2), 89–100. 10.1177/1742395310364857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ádány R, Kósa K, Sándor J, Papp M, Fürjes G, 2013. General practitioners’ cluster: a model to reorient primary health care to public health services. Eur. J. Pub. Health 23, 529–530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Albright AL, Gregg EW, 2013. Preventing type 2 diabetes in communities across the U.S.: the National Diabetes Prevention Program. Am. J. Prev. Med 44, S346–S351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ali MK, Echouffo-Tcheugui J, Williamson DF, 2012. How effective were lifestyle interventions in real-world settings that were modeled on the Diabetes Prevention Program? Health Aff. (Millwood) 31, 67–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. American Diabetes Association, 2018. Economic costs of Diabetes in the US in 2017. Diabetes Care 41, 917–928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. American Medical Association, 2020. Bi-directional feedback loop process. Available at. http://amapreventdiabetes.org/sites/default/files/uploaded-files/amapreventdiabetes_Bidirectional%20Feedback%20Loop.pdf. (Accessed 20 September 2020).
  7. Arcury TA, Gesler WM, Preisser JS, Sherman J, Spencer J, Perin J, 2005. The effects of geography and spatial behavior on health care utilization among the residents of a rural region. Health Serv. Res 40, 135–155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Billi JE, Pai CW, Spahlinger DA, 2007. The effect of distance to primary care physician on health care utilization and disease burden. Health Care Manag. Rev 32 (1), 22–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017. Nat. Diab. Stat. Report 2017 Available at. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/library/diabetesreportcard2017-508.pdf. (Accessed 20 September 2020).
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020. National diabetes statistics report, p. 2020. Available at. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf. (Accessed 20 September 2020).
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program, 2018. Standards and operating procedures. Available at. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/pdf/dprp-standards.pdf (Accessed September 20, 2020).
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program, 2020. Registry of all recognized organizations. Available at. https://nccd.cdc.gov/DDT_DPRP/Registry.aspx. (Accessed 20 September 2020).
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Diabetes Prevention Program Customer Service Center, 2019. Bi-Directional Referrals: Considerations for Health Care Providers. Available at. https://nationaldppcsc.cdc.gov/s/article/Bi-Directional-Referrals-Considerations-for-Health-Care-Providers-Webinar. (Accessed 20 September 2020).
  14. Crandall JP, Knowler WC, Kahn SE, Marrero D, Florez JC, Bray GA, Haffner SM, Hoskin M, Nathan DM, 2008. The prevention of type 2 diabetes. Nat. Clin. Pract. Endocrinol. Metab 4, 382–393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dunkley AJ, Bodicoat DH, Greaves CJ, Russell C, Yates T, Davies MJ, Khunti K, 2014. Diabetes prevention in the real world: effectiveness of pragmatic lifestyle interventions for the prevention of type 2 diabetes and of the impact of adherence to guideline recommendations - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 37, 922–933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Etz RS, Cohen DJ, Woolf SH, Holtrop JS, Donahue KE, Isaacson NF, Stange KC, Ferrer RL, Olson AL, 2008. Bridging primary care practices and communities to promote healthy behaviors. Am. J. Prev. Med 35, S390–S397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fianu A, Bourse L, Naty N, Le Moullec N, Lepage B, Lang T, Favier F, 2016. Long-term effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for the primary Prevention of type 2 Diabetes in a low socio-economic community–an intervention follow-up study on Reunion Island. PLoS One 11, e0146095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fishleder S, Petrescu-Prahova M, Harris JR, Steinman L, Kohn M, Bennett K, Helfrich CD, 2018. Bridging the gap after physical therapy: clinical-community linkages with older adult physical activity programs. Innov. Aging 2, igy006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Holliday CS, Williams J, Salcedo V, Kandula NR, 2019. Clinical identification and referral of adults with Prediabetes to a Diabetes Prevention Program. Prev. Chronic Dis 16, E82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Katangwe TF, Sokhi J, Al-Jabr H, Kirkdale CL, Twigg MJ, 2019. The community pharmacy setting for diabetes prevention: views and perceptions of stakeholders. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource] 14, 17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Keck JW, Roper KL, Hieronymus LB, Thomas AR, Huang Z, Westgate PM, Fowlkes JL, Cardarelli R, 2020. Primary care cluster RCT to increase Diabetes Prevention Program referrals. Am. J. Prev. Med 59, 79–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kelly C, Hulme C, Farragher T, Clarke G, 2016. Are differences in travel time or distance to healthcare for adults in global north countries associated with an impact on health outcomes? A systematic review. BMJ Open 6, e013059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, Nathan DM, Diabetes Prevention Program Research, G, 2002. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N. Engl. J. Med 346, 393–403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lebrun LA, Shi L, Chowdhury J, Sripipatana A, Zhu J, Sharma R, Hayashi AS, Daly CA, Tomoyasu N, et al. , 2012. Primary care and public health activities in select US health centers: documenting successes, barriers, and lessons learned. Am. J. Prev. Med 42, S191–S202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lindstrom J, Ilanne-Parikka P, Peltonen M, Aunola S, Eriksson JG, Hemio K, Hamalainen H, Harkonen P, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S, et al. , 2006. Sustained reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention: follow-up of the Finnish Diabetes Prevention study. Lancet 368, 1673–1679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lohr AI, Nunez AV, Reinschmidt KM, Carvajal SC, 2018. Community-clinical linkage with community health workers in the United States: a scoping review. Health Promot. Pract 19, 12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Mainous AG 3rd, Tanner RJ, Scuderi CB, Porter M, Carek PJ, 2016. Prediabetes screening and treatment in Diabetes Prevention: the impact of physician attitudes. J. Am. Board Family Med 29, 663–671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Martin-Misener R, Valaitis R, Wong ST, Macdonald M, Meagher-Stewart D, Kaczorowski J, Savage R, Austin P, 2012. A scoping literature review of collaboration between primary care and public health. Primary Health Care Res. Dev 13, 327–346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. McLafferty SL, 2003. GIS and health care. Annu. Rev. Public Health 24 (1), 25–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mooney C, Zwanziger J, Phibbs CS, Schmitt S, 2000. Is travel distance a barrier to veterans’ use of VA hospitals for medical surgical care? Soc. Sci. Med 50, 1743–1755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nemet GF, Bailey AJ, 2000. Distance and health care utilization among the rural elderly. Soc. Sci. Med 50, 1197–1208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Nhim K, Khan T, Gruss SM, Wozniak G, Kirley K, Schumacher P, Luman ET, Albright A, 2018. Primary care Providers’ Prediabetes screening, testing, and referral behaviors. Am. J. Prev. Med 55, e39–e47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rehm CD, Marquez ME, Spurrell-Huss E, Hollingsworth N, Parsons AS, 2017. Lessons from launching the Diabetes Prevention Program in a large integrated health care delivery system: a case study. Population Health Manag. 20, 262–270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Roper KL, Thomas AR, Hieronymus L, Brock A, Keck J, 2019. Patient and clinician perceptions of prediabetes: a mixed-methods primary care study. Diabetes Educat. 45 (3), 302–314. 10.1177/0145721719845347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rosenblum A, Cleland C, Fong C, Kayman D, Tempalski B, Parrino M, 2011. Distance traveled and cross-state commuting to opioid treatment programs in the United States. J. Environ. Public Health. 10.1155/2011/948789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Schmitt SK, Phibbs CS, Piette JD, 2003. The influence of distance on utilization of outpatient mental health aftercare following inpatient substance abuse treatment. Addict. Behav 28 (6), 1183–1192. 10.1016/s0306-4603(02)00218-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Syed ST, Gerber BS, Sharp LK, 2013. Traveling towards disease: transportation barriers to health care access. J. Community Health 38 (5), 976–993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Tseng E, Greer RC, O’Rourke P, Yeh HC, McGuire MM, Albright AL, Marsteller JA, Clark JM, Maruthur NM, 2019. National Survey of primary care Physicians’ knowledge, practices, and perceptions of Prediabetes. J. Gen. Intern. Med 34, 2475–2481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S, Laakso M, Louheranta A, et al. , 2001. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N. Engl. J. Med 344, 1343–1350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Valaitis RK, Wong ST, MacDonald M, Martin-Misener R, O’Mara L, Meagher-Stewart D, Isaacs S, Murray N, Baumann A, et al. , 2020. Addressing quadruple aims through primary care and public health collaboration: ten Canadian case studies. BMC Public Health 20, 507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Name MA, Camp AW, Magenheimer EA, Li F, Dziura JD, Montosa A, Patel A, Tamborlane WV, 2016. Effective translation of an intensive lifestyle intervention for Hispanic women with Prediabetes in a community health center setting. Diabetes Care 39, 525–531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Vojta D, Koehler TB, Longjohn M, Lever JA, Caputo NF, 2013. A coordinated national model for diabetes prevention: linking health systems to an evidence-based community program. Am. J. Prev. Med 44, S301–S306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhuo X, Zhang P, Gregg EW, Barker L, Hoerger TJ, Tony P-C, Albright A, 2012. A nationwide community-based lifestyle program could delay or prevent type 2 diabetes cases and save $5.7 billion in 25 years. Health Aff. (Millwood) 31, 50–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES