Introductory Overview of the Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network: Examining the Impact of US Health Policies and Practices to Prevent Diabetes and Its Complications
Purpose of Review
Diabetes incidence is rising among vulnerable population subgroups including minorities and individuals with limited education. Many diabetes-related programs and public policies are unevaluated while others are analyzed with research designs highly susceptible to bias which can result in flawed conclusions. The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network includes eight research centers and three funding agencies using rigorous methods to evaluate natural experiments in health policy and program delivery.
NEXT-D2 research studies use quasi-experimental methods to assess three major areas as they relate to diabetes: health insurance expansion; healthcare financing and payment models; and innovations in care coordination. The studies will report on preventive processes, achievement of diabetes care goals, and incidence of complications. Some studies assess healthcare utilization while others focus on patient-reported outcomes.
NEXT-D2 examines the effect of public and private policies on diabetes care and prevention at a critical time, given ongoing and rapid shifts in the US health policy landscape.
KeywordsHealth policy Socio-ecologic framework Quasi-experimental Health outcomes Patient engagement Research dissemination
The authors acknowledge the significant contributions to this study that were provided by collaborating investigators in the NEXT-D2 (Natural Experiments in Translation for Diabetes) Study Two. The authors also acknowledge the participation of our partnering health systems.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Drs. O. Kenrik Duru, Carol M. Mangione, Hector P. Rodriguez, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Frank Wharam, Bernard Black, Abel Kho, Nathalie Huguet, Heather Angier, Victoria Mayer, David Siscovick, Jennifer Kraschnewski, Lizheng Shi, Elizabeth Nauman, Edward W. Gregg, Mohammed K. Ali, Pamela Thornton, and Steve Clauser declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:• Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report: estimates of diabetes and its burden in the United States, 2014. 2014; https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014statisticsreport.html. Accessed 2017–08-14.
- 2.American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care(36):4.Google Scholar
- 3.Downer S, Condra A, White KL, Shaw S, Myeni A, Leonce M, Gurley K. 2015 US Federal Report PATHS Providing Access to Healthy Solutions beating type 2 diabetes: recommendations for Federal Policy Reform. In: the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation of Harvard Law School: Harvard Law School; 2015.Google Scholar
- 5.Andrews, M.. New health plans offer discounts for diabetes care. 2015. https://khn.org/news/new-health-plans-offer-discounts-for-diabetes-care/.
- 6.WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP). 2017. https://www.fns.usda.gov/fmnp/wic-farmers-market-nutrition-program-fmnp.
- 7.Smart Growth America. What are Complete Streets? 2017.https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/what-are-complete-streets/.
- 8.•• Soumerai SB, Starr D, Majumdar SR. How do you know which health care effectiveness research you can trust? A guide to study design for the perplexed. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E101. This study provides several concise examples of common study designs that are susceptible to bias, compared with examples of alternative, more rigorous study designs for the same research questions. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Glass TA, Goodman SN, Hernan MA, Samet JM. Causal inference in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34(1):61–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124606.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ryan R, Hill S, Prictor M, McKenzie J. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. Study quality guide. 2013. http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources. Accessed 2017-08-14.
- 15.• Anglemyer A, Hovarth HT, Bero L. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4. This systematic meta-review of methodologic review papers found that while randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard of study designs, there is little difference in the observed effect size between RCTs and observational analyses, particularly for non-pharmacologic studies . Google Scholar
- 17.Craig P, Katikireddi SV, Leyland A, Popham F. Natural experiments: an overview of methods, approaches, and contributions to public health intervention research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38(1):39–56. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference 2nd Edition: Wadsworth Publishing; 2001.Google Scholar
- 24.Wharam JF, Zhang F, Eggleston EM, Lu CY, Soumerai S, Ross-Degnan D. Diabetes outpatient care and acute complications before and after high-deductible insurance enrollment: a Natural Experiment for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D) study. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):358–68. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8411.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Adams SR, Wiley DM, Fargeix A, George V, Neugebauer RS, Schmittdiel JA. Employer-based screening for diabetes and prediabetes in an integrated health care delivery system: a Natural Experiment for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D) study. J Occup Environ Med. 2015;57(11):1147–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000548.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Natural EXperiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2). (2017). https://uclahealth.org/nextd2.
- 38.PCORI Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. What We Mean by Engagement 2014; http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/what-we-mean-engagement. Accessed 2017–02-20.
- 40.Mallery C, Ganachari D, Fernandez J, Smeeding L, Robinson S, Moon M, et al. Innovative methods in stakeholder engagement: an environmental scan. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.Google Scholar
- 41.Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pub L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 855, 124 Stat. 271, §2001. 2010.Google Scholar
- 43.Wallace SP, Young ME, Rodriguez MA. Community health centers play a critical role in caring for the remaining uninsured in the Affordable Care Act Era. Policy Brief UCLA Cent Health Policy Res. 2016(PB2016–7):1–8.Google Scholar
- 45.Huguet N, Angier H, Marino M, McConnell KJ, Hoopes MJ, O'Malley JP, Raynor LA, Likumahuwa-Ackman S, Holderness H, DeVoe JE. Protocol for the analysis of a natural experiment on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on diabetes care in community health centers. Implement Sci 2017;10(12).Google Scholar
- 46.Claxton G, Rae M, Panchal N, Damico A, Bostick N, Kenward K, Whitmore H. The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust Employer Health Benefits 2014 Annual Survey. 2014.Google Scholar
- 48.Buck K. 2012 Census shows 13.5 million people covered by health savings account/high-deductible health plans. America's Health Insurance Plans, Center for Policy and Research. 2012.Google Scholar
- 49.“Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, CMS Pub. 100–03, Chapter 1, Sec. 210.12 (Feb. 3, 2012); last accessed Nov. 30, 2017 and available at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/Downloads/R142NCD.pdf.
- 50.“Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, CMS Pub. 100–20, (Nov. 18, 2015); last accessed Nov. 30, 2017 and available at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/Downloads/R1576OTN.pdf.
- 54.Green LW, Ottoson JM, Garcia C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30(1):151–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 56.Dodson EA, Geary NA, Brownson RC. State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy. Health Educ Res 2015;30(6):840–848. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyv044.