Current Diabetes Reports

, 18:146 | Cite as

Advancing Health Policy and Program Research in Diabetes: Findings from the Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D) Network

  • Mohammed K. AliEmail author
  • Frank Wharam
  • O. Kenrik Duru
  • Julie Schmittdiel
  • Ronald T. Ackermann
  • Jeanine Albu
  • Dennis Ross-Degnan
  • Christine M. Hunter
  • Carol Mangione
  • Edward W. Gregg
  • On behalf of the NEXT-D Study Group
Economics and Policy in Diabetes (ES Huang and AA Baig, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Economics and Policy in Diabetes


Purpose of Review

To advance our understanding of the impacts of policies and programs aimed at improving detection, engagement, prevention, and clinical diabetes management in the USA, we synthesized findings from a network of studies that used natural experiments to evaluate diabetes health policies and programs.


Studies from the Natural EXperiments for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D) network used rigorous longitudinal quasi-experimental study designs (e.g., interrupted time series) and analytical methods (e.g., difference-in-differences) to augment causal inference. Investigators partnered with health system stakeholders to evaluate whether glucose testing rates changed from before-to-after clinic interventions (e.g., integrating electronic screening decision prompts in New York City) or employer programs (e.g., targeted messaging and waiving copayments for at-risk employees). Other studies examined participation and behavior change in low- (e.g., wellness coaching) or high-intensity lifestyle modification programs (e.g., diabetes prevention program-like interventions) offered by payers or employers. Lastly, studies assessed how employer health insurance benefits impacted healthcare utilization, adherence, and outcomes among people with diabetes. NEXT-D demonstrated that low-intensity interventions to facilitate glucose testing and enhance engagement in lifestyle modification were associated with small improvements in weight but large improvements in screening and testing when supported by electronic health record-based decision-support. Regarding high-intensity diabetes prevention program-like lifestyle programs offered by payers or employers, enrollment was modest and led to weight loss and marginally lower short-term health expenditures. Health plans that incentivize patient behaviors were associated with increases in medication adherence. Meanwhile, shifting patients to high-deductible health plans was associated with no change in medication use and preventive screenings, but patients with diabetes delayed accessing healthcare for acute complications (e.g., cellulitis). Findings were more pronounced among lower-income patients, who experienced increased rates and acuity of emergency department visits for diabetes complications and other high-severity conditions.


Findings from NEXT-D studies provide informative data that can guide programs and policies to facilitate detection, prevention, and treatment of diabetes in practice.


Diabetes Policy Natural experiment Prevention Clinical management 



The NEXT-D Study Writing Group members are the guarantors for the work, including the study designs, access to data, and decision to submit and publish the manuscript.


The opinions expressed herein and the interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the authors and are not official recommendations, interpretations, or policies of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, or the US Government.


The NEXT-D network was supported by a cooperative agreement jointly funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [66] and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) under CDC Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number: RFA-DP10-002, entitled Natural Experiments and Effectiveness Studies to Identify the Best Policy and System Level Practices to Prevent Diabetes and Its Complications.

Dr. Ali also receives support from the NIDDK-funded Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research (P30 DK111024).

Drs. Schmittdiel, Ross-Degnan, and Wharam also receive support from the NIDDK-funded Health Delivery Systems Center for Diabetes Translational Research (P30 DK092924).

The NEXT-D Study Group comprises additional investigators, namely:

Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute: Steve Soumerai, Emma Eggleston, Christine Lu, Fang Zhang

University of California at Los Angeles: Tannaz Moin, Susan L. Ettner, Norman Turk, Lindsay Kimbro

Kaiser Permanente: Sara Adams, Mindy Boccio, Nancy Goler, Rashel Sanna, Andromache Fargeix, Victoria George, Romain Neugebauer, Assiamira Ferrara, Susan Brown

Mount Sinai: Nancy Sohler, Brenda Matti, Edwin Young, Carolyn Chu, Francisco Perez Mata, Julian Botta, Pindan Hao, Carolina Hurtado

Northwestern University: Margaret Moran, Ray Kang, Andrew Cooper, Matthew O’Brien, David Liss, Joyce Tang, Ann Holmes, Chandan Saha

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Bernice Moore, Heather Devlin, Patricia Shea

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK): Sandy Garfield

The NEXT-D investigators would like to acknowledge collaborative and administrative support from the following stakeholders: United Health Group: Bob Luchs, Charlie Chan, Abigail Keckhafer, Anya Kirvan, Sam Ho, Deneen Vojta, and Ted Prospect.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Mohammed K. Ali, Frank Wharam, O. Kenrik Duru, Julie Schmittdiel, Ronald T. Ackermann, Jeanine Albu, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Christine M. Hunter, Carol Mangione, and Edward W. Gregg 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.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States. Accessed August 3, 2017.
  2. 2.
    Thorpe KE, Ogden LL, Galactionova K. Chronic conditions account for rise in Medicare spending from 1987 to 2006. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(4):718–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(4):1033–46.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(6):393–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pan XR, Li GW, Hu YH, Wang JX, Yang WY, An ZX, et al. Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance. The Da Qing IGT and diabetes study. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(4):537–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Mary S, Mukesh B, Bhaskar AD, Vijay V. The Indian diabetes prevention Programme shows that lifestyle modification and metformin prevent type 2 diabetes in Asian Indian subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IDPP-1). Diabetologia. 2006;49(2):289–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(18):1343–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gregg EW, Jakicic JM, Blackburn G, Bloomquist P, Bray GA, Clark JM, et al. Association of the magnitude of weight loss and changes in physical fitness with long-term cardiovascular disease outcomes in overweight or obese people with type 2 diabetes: a post-hoc analysis of the look AHEAD randomised clinical trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(11):913–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, Genuth SM, Lachin JM, Orchard TJ, et al. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2643–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tandon N, Ali MK, Narayan KM. Pharmacologic prevention of microvascular and macrovascular complications in diabetes mellitus: implications of the results of recent clinical trials in type 2 diabetes. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2012;12(1):7–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chalmers J, Arima H. Management of hypertension: evidence from the blood pressure lowering treatment Trialists' collaboration and from major clinical trials. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2009;119(6):373–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cholesterol Treatment Trialists C. Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174 000 participants in 27 randomised trials. Lancet 2015.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohiuddin SM, Mooss AN, Hunter CB, Grollmes TL, Cloutier DA, Hilleman DE. Intensive smoking cessation intervention reduces mortality in high-risk smokers with cardiovascular disease. Chest. 2007;131(2):446–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Phillips LS, Barb D, Yong C, Tomolo AM, Jackson SL, Olson DE, et al. Translating what works: a new approach to improve diabetes management. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(4):857–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tricco AC, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Moher D, Turner L, Galipeau J, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;379(9833):2252–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ali MK, Bullard KM, Saaddine JB, Cowie CC, Imperatore G, Gregg EW. Achievement of goals in U.S. diabetes care, 1999-2010. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(17):1613–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saaddine JB, Cadwell B, Gregg EW, Engelgau MM, Vinicor F, Imperatore G, et al. Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988-2002. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(7):465–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;Pages on February 2018.
  20. 20.
    Gregg EW, Li Y, Wang J, Burrows NR, Ali MK, Rolka D, et al. Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States, 1990-2010. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1514–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gregg EW, Zhuo X, Cheng YJ, Albright AL, Narayan KM, Thompson TJ. Trends in lifetime risk and years of life lost due to diabetes in the USA, 1985-2011: a modelling study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(11):867–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bardenheier BH, Lin J, Zhuo X, Ali MK, Thompson TJ, Cheng YJ, et al. Disability-free life-years lost among adults aged >/=50 years with and without diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1222–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hill JO, Galloway JM, Goley A, Marrero DG, Minners R, Montgomery B, et al. Scientific statement: Socioecological determinants of Prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(8):2430–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soumerai SB, Ceccarelli R, Koppel R. False dichotomies and health policy research designs: randomized trials are not always the answer. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(2):204–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    •• Basu S, Meghani A, Siddiqi A. Evaluating the health impact of large-scale public policy changes: classical and novel approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38(1):351–70. This review provides thorough descriptions and discussion regarding the various study designs and analytical approaches for evaluating large-scale health policies.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    • 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;38:39–56. This report reviews natural experiment methodologies and their interpretation to evaluate large scale public health interventions.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    •• Ackermann RT, Kenrik Duru O, Albu JB, Schmittdiel JA, Soumerai SB, Wharam JF, et al. Evaluating diabetes health policies using natural experiments: the natural experiments for translation in diabetes study. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(6):747–54. This report describes the Natural EXperiments for Translation in Diabetes network, the studies, their designs, and anticipated impacts of this work.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report: Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States, 2014. In: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ed. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Atlanta, GA; 2014.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Awareness of prediabetes—United States, 2005–2010. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;62:209–12.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ali MK, Bullard KM, Gregg EW, Del Rio C. A cascade of care for diabetes in the United States: visualizing the gaps. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(10):681–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li R, Qu S, Zhang P, Chattopadhyay S, Gregg EW, Albright A, et al. Economic evaluation of combined diet and physical activity promotion programs to prevent type 2 diabetes among persons at increased risk: a systematic review for the community preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:452–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mudaliar U, Zabetian A, Goodman M, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Albright AL, Gregg EW, et al. Cardiometabolic risk factor changes observed in diabetes prevention programs in US settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2016;13(7):e1002095.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Standards of medical care in diabetes--2013. Diabetes Care 2013;36 Suppl 1:S11–66, Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2013.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Siu AL. Screening for abnormal blood glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation StatementScreening for abnormal blood glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(11):861–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(11):846–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Selvin E, Ali MK. Declines in the incidence of diabetes in the U.S.—real Progress or artifact? Diabetes Care. 2017;40(9):1139–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sohler N, Matti-Orozco B, Young E, Li X, Gregg EW, Ali MK, et al. Opportunistic screening for diabetes and Prediabetes using hemoglobin A1c in an urban primary care setting. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(2):143–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Albu JB, Sohler N, Li R, Li X, Young E, Gregg EW, et al. An interrupted time series analysis to determine the effect of an electronic health record-based intervention on appropriate screening for type 2 diabetes in urban primary care clinics in New York City. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(8):1058–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ali MK, Echouffo-Tcheugui J, Williamson DF. How effective were lifestyle interventions in real-world settings that were modeled on the diabetes prevention program? Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(1):67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ely EK, Gruss SM, Luman ET, Gregg EW, Ali MK, Nhim K, et al. A National Effort to prevent type 2 diabetes: participant-level evaluation of CDC's national diabetes prevention program. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:1331–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gold R, Yu K, Liang LJ, Adler F, Balingit P, Luc P, et al. Synchronous provider visit and self-management education improves glycemic control in Hispanic patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2008;34(6):990–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grant RW, Schmittdiel JA, Neugebauer RS, Uratsu CS, Sternfeld B. Exercise as a vital sign: a quasi-experimental analysis of a health system intervention to collect patient-reported exercise levels. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(2):341–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Xiao H, Adams SR, Goler N, Sanna RS, Boccio M, Bellamy DJ, et al. Wellness coaching for people with Prediabetes: a randomized encouragement trial to evaluate outreach methods at Kaiser Permanente, northern California, 2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E207.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schmittdiel JA, Adams SR, Goler N, Sanna RS, Boccio M, Bellamy DJ, et al. The impact of telephonic wellness coaching on weight loss: a "natural experiments for translation in diabetes (NEXT-D)" study. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2017;25(2):352–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boccio M, Sanna RS, Adams SR, Goler NC, Brown SD, Neugebauer RS, et al. Telephone-based coaching. Am J Health Promot. 2017;31(2):136–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Adams SR, Goler NC, Sanna RS, Boccio M, Bellamy DJ, Brown SD, et al. Patient satisfaction and perceived success with a telephonic health coaching program: the natural experiments for translation in diabetes (NEXT-D) study, northern California, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vojta D, Koehler TB, Longjohn M, Lever JA, Caputo NF. A coordinated National Model for diabetes prevention. Am J Prev Med. 44(4):S301–S6.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Aponte J. Prevalence of normoglycemic, prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels. World J Diabetes. 2013;4(6):349–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(Supplement 1):S44–S7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Moin T, Li J, Duru OK, Ettner S, Turk N, Keckhafer A, et al. Metformin prescription for insured adults with prediabetes from 2010 to 2012: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(8):542–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Loewenstein G, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Behavioral economics holds potential to deliver better results for patients, insurers, and employers. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(7):1244–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Volpp KG, Asch DA. Make the healthy choice the easy choice: using behavioral economics to advance a culture of health. QJM. 2017;110(5):271–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Perreault L, Kahn SE, Christophi CA, Knowler WC, Hamman RF. Regression from pre-diabetes to normal glucose regulation in the diabetes prevention program. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(9):1583–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Brown JS, Wing R, Barrett-Connor E, Nyberg LM, Kusek JW, Orchard TJ, et al. Lifestyle Intervention Is Associated With Lower Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence. Diabetes Prev Prog. 2006;29(2):385–90.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
    Haw J, Galaviz KI, Straus AN, et al. Long-term sustainability of diabetes prevention approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1808–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhuo X, Zhang P, Kahn HS, Bardenheier BH, Li R, Gregg EW. Change in medical spending attributable to diabetes: national data from 1987 to 2011. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(4):581–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thorpe KE. Analysis & commentary: the affordable care act lays the groundwork for a national diabetes prevention and treatment strategy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(1):61–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Duru OK, Turk N, Ettner SL, Neugebauer R, Moin T, Li J, et al. Adherence to metformin, statins, and ACE/ARBs within the diabetes health plan (DHP). J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(11):1645–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
  64. 64.
    Wharam JF, Zhang F, Eggleston EM, Lu CY, Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D. Effect of high-deductible insurance on high-acuity outcomes in diabetes: a natural experiment for translation in diabetes (NEXT-D) study. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:940–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Myerson R, Laiteerapong N. The affordable care act and diabetes diagnosis and care: exploring the potential impacts. Curr Diab Rep. 2016;16(4):27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report: Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States, 2014. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014. 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed K. Ali
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Frank Wharam
    • 3
  • O. Kenrik Duru
    • 4
  • Julie Schmittdiel
    • 5
  • Ronald T. Ackermann
    • 6
  • Jeanine Albu
    • 7
  • Dennis Ross-Degnan
    • 3
  • Christine M. Hunter
    • 8
  • Carol Mangione
    • 9
  • Edward W. Gregg
    • 1
  • On behalf of the NEXT-D Study Group
  1. 1.Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Hubert Department of Global HealthEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Department of Population MedicineHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Division of ResearchKaiser Permanente Northern CaliforniaOaklandUSA
  6. 6.Department of Medicine, General Medicine DivisionNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  7. 7.Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Bone DiseasesIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  8. 8.Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences ResearchNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  9. 9.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations