Community Health Service GGD Gelre-IJssel; Academic Collaborative Centre AGORA, GGD Gelre-IJssel, PO Box 51, 7300, AB, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
BMC Public Health. 2013 May 8;13:457. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-457.
Although many evidence-based diabetes prevention interventions exist, they are not easily applicable in real-life settings. Moreover, there is a lack of examples which describe the adaptation process of these interventions to practice. In this paper we present an example of such an adaptation. We adapted the SLIM (Study on Lifestyle intervention and Impaired glucose tolerance Maastricht) diabetes prevention intervention to a Dutch real-life setting, in a joint decision making process of intervention developers and local health care professionals.
We used 3 adaptation steps in accordance with current adaptation frameworks. In the first step, the elements of the SLIM intervention were identified. In the second step, these elements were judged for their applicability in a real-life setting. In the third step, adaptations were proposed and discussed for those elements which were deemed not applicable. Participants invited for this process included intervention developers and local health care professionals (n=19).
In the first adaptation step, a total of 22 intervention elements were identified. In the second step, 12 of these 22 intervention elements were judged as inapplicable. In the third step, a consensus was achieved for the adaptations of all 12 elements. The adapted elements were in the following categories: target population, techniques, intensity, delivery mode, materials, organisational structure, and political and financial conditions. The adaptations either lay in changing the SLIM protocol (6 elements) or the real-life working procedures (1 element), or a combination of both (4 elements).
The positive result of this study is that a consensus was achieved within a relatively short time period (nine months) between the developers of the SLIM intervention and local health care professionals on the adaptations needed to make SLIM applicable in a Dutch real-life setting. Our example shows that it is possible to combine the perspectives of scientists and practitioners, and to find a balance between evidence-base and applicability concerns.
尽管有许多基于证据的糖尿病预防干预措施,但它们在现实环境中不易应用。此外,缺乏描述这些干预措施适应实践的例子。本文介绍了一个这样的适应实例。我们将 SLIM(马斯特里赫特生活方式干预和糖耐量受损研究)糖尿病预防干预措施改编为荷兰现实环境中的一种方法,这是干预措施制定者和当地卫生保健专业人员共同决策的结果。
我们根据当前的适应框架使用了 3 个适应步骤。在第一步中,确定了 SLIM 干预措施的要素。在第二步中,判断这些要素在现实环境中的适用性。在第三步中,对于那些被认为不适用的要素,提出并讨论了适应措施。邀请参与这一过程的人员包括干预措施制定者和当地卫生保健专业人员(n=19)。
在第一步适应中,确定了总共 22 个干预要素。在第二步中,这 22 个要素中有 12 个被判断为不适用。在第三步中,对于所有 12 个要素的适应措施达成了共识。适应的要素包括目标人群、技术、强度、交付模式、材料、组织结构以及政治和财务条件。适应措施要么是改变 SLIM 方案(6 个要素),要么是改变现实工作程序(1 个要素),要么是两者的结合(4 个要素)。
这项研究的积极结果是,在 SLIM 干预措施的制定者和当地卫生保健专业人员之间,在相对较短的时间内(九个月)就需要进行的适应措施达成了共识,以使 SLIM 在荷兰现实环境中适用。我们的例子表明,有可能结合科学家和实践者的观点,并在证据基础和适用性问题之间找到平衡。