Advertisement

Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes and Its Complications in Developing Countries: A Review

  • Lal B. Rawal
  • Robyn J. Tapp
  • Emily D. Williams
  • Carina Chan
  • Shajahan Yasin
  • Brian Oldenburg
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a significant global public health problem affecting more than 285 million people worldwide. Over 70% of those with T2DM live in developing countries, and this proportion is increasing annually. Evidence suggests that lifestyle and other nonpharmacological interventions can delay and even prevent the development of T2DM and its complications; however, to date, programs that have been specifically adapted to the needs and circumstances of developing countries have not been well developed or evaluated.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to review published studies that evaluate lifestyle and other non-pharmacological interventions aimed at preventing T2DM and its complications in developing countries.

Methods

We undertook an electronic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE with the English language restriction and published until 30 September 2009.

Results

Nine relevant publications from seven studies were identified. The reported interventions predominantly used counseling and educational methods to improve diet and physical activity levels. Each intervention was found to be effective in reducing the risk of developing T2DM in people with impaired glucose tolerance, and improving glycemic control in people with T2DM.

Conclusions

The current evidence concerning the prevention of T2DM and its complications in developing countries has shown reasonably consistent and positive results; however, the small number of studies creates some significant limitations. More research is needed to evaluate the benefits of low-cost screening tools, as well as the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of culturally appropriate interventions in such countries.

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes Complications Prevention Developing countries 

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a significant global public health problem [1, 2]. The International Diabetes Federation recently reported that the number of people with diabetes will escalate from 285 million in 2010 to 438 million by 2,030, with more than 70% of cases already from developing countries [2]. Despite a number of significant global and regional initiatives being undertaken to prevent diabetes and diabetes-related complications [3, 4, 5, 6, 7], seven out of the top ten countries with the greatest number of people living with diabetes are low- or middle-income countries. These include China, India, Russia, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Bangladesh [8, 9, 10, 11], with China now having the largest number of individuals with diabetes (92.4 million) in the world [8].

Each year, almost four million deaths are directly attributable to diabetes, constituting 6.8% of the total global (all-age and all-cause) mortality [12, 13]. Diabetes is the fourth leading cause of disease-related death and almost 80% of diabetes-related deaths occur in developing countries. It has been projected that diabetes-related deaths will increase by 50% in the next 10 years if no urgent action is taken [14]. T2DM poses a significant economic burden to individuals, families, health systems, and nations, particularly in resource-poor countries [14, 15]. Despite this, over 80% of the world’s diabetes care-related expenditure occurs in developed countries [16]. Given the rapidly escalating financial and societal costs associated with diabetes care in developing countries, where resources to address the disease are severely limited, there is an urgent need for the development, implementation, and evaluation of programs to prevent T2DM and its complications [4].

Since the concept of T2DM prevention on a mass scale was first proposed early in the twentieth century [17], and was more recently emphasized by the World Health Organization (WHO) [18] and other international organizations, a number of very well-conducted intervention trials have now evaluated the prevention of diabetes and its complications in developed countries. These trials include the Malmo Feasibility Study in Sweden [19], the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS) [20, 21, 22] and the US Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) [23]; all of which have demonstrated comparable efficacy, by reducing the risk of developing T2DM by up to 63% in lifestyle intervention groups compared with controls. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Gillies et al. confirmed these findings, reporting that non-pharmacological interventions were effective in reducing the risk of T2DM in people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) by up to 60% compared with control groups [24].

Trials focused on the prevention of T2DM complications conducted in developed countries have not directly examined the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on complication incidence. However, studies have demonstrated that non-pharmacological interventions are effective in reducing glycemic levels in people with T2DM [19, 20] and work from the UK and Japan indicates that optimal control of glycemic levels in people with newly diagnosed T2DM can reduce the development of complications [25, 26].

Despite the evidence concerning prevention of T2DM and its complications in developed countries, the translation of these programs to developing countries, where resources are limited to address the problem, still presents a very significant challenge. Therefore, it is important to develop and evaluate culturally appropriate interventions in developing countries [3, 27]. This paper reviews the study characteristics, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of those non-pharmacological interventions aimed at preventing T2DM and its related complications in developing countries.

Methods

Search Strategy

We undertook an electronic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE with the search terms “Diabetes Mellitus Type 2,” “Glucose Intolerance,” “Primary Prevention,” “Secondary Prevention,” “Diabetes Complications,” and “Lifestyle Intervention.” These search terms were combined with the search term “Developing Countries” to identify relevant articles. In addition, we performed a search of policy and program documents developed by different national and international organizations. Furthermore, all relevant reference lists from the main papers were hand searched for additional papers of interest. The article search, inclusion and selection process is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Flow chart showing articles search, inclusion criteria, and selection process

Inclusion Criteria

The search was restricted to English language with papers published until 30 September 2009. We applied the World Bank 2008 classification criteria [28] to identify developing countries. Those studies/trials that employed lifestyle or non-pharmacological interventions conducted in developing countries with a glucose measure as a primary outcome were included. There was no restriction on sample size or duration of the intervention.

Information Assessment

Two independent reviewers examined each full-text paper for eligibility and extracted and tabulated all relevant information. Any differences were resolved by discussion and consensus with other authors. Inclusion or exclusion of the studies was determined by consensus between authors. The information assessment and synthesis were primarily based on the main findings of the publications.

Results

We initially identified 247 research articles by Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE searches. After a review of the titles and abstracts, 84 papers closely matched our inclusion criteria. The full papers were examined, however, 75 papers did not meet our inclusion criteria (i.e., evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions aimed at prevention of the development of T2DM or its associated complications, the inclusion of blood glucose or glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as a primary outcome and the study being undertaken in a developing country), so they were subsequently excluded. Consequently, nine publications from seven studies were included in this review. A summary of each intervention and the findings are presented in this section. The main findings of the studies are divided into four subsections: (1) sample characteristics, (2) intervention or program characteristics, (3) effectiveness of the programs and (4) cost-effectiveness. The key sample characteristics and the findings of the study are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 and intervention characteristics in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 1

Summary of studies for prevention of development of T2DM in developing countries

Reference

Objective

Study design

Sample characteristics

Duration

Main findings

n

Mean age (years)

Da-Qing, 1997 [29, 30]

Determine whether diet and exercise intervention in those with IGT would reduce incidence of T2DM and related complications (e.g., cardiovascular/renal/retinal disease and excess mortality)

RCT

577 adults aged >25 years with IGT

45 ± 9.1

6 years

Diabetes incidence after 6 years of intervention

67.7% in control, 43.8% in diet, 41.1% in exercise, and 46.0% in diet + exercise groups

Relative risk reduction for T2DM:

31% with diet, 46% with exercise, and 42% with diet + exercise groups compared with control group

Diabetes incidence at 20-year follow-up

Cumulative incidence: 80% in intervention groups compared with 93% in control group

Intervention group participants spent an average of 3.6 fewer years with DM compared with control group

No significant difference in rate of first CVD events/CVD mortality/all-cause mortality

IDPP-1, 2006 [31, 40]

Determine whether incidence of T2DM could be modified by lifestyle interventions

RCT

531 adults aged 35–55 years with IGT

45.9 ± 5.7

3 years

Diabetes incidence after 3 years of intervention

55% in control, 39.3% in lifestyle management (LSM), 40.5% in metformin (MET), and 39.5% in LSM + MET groups

Relative risk reduction for T2DM

28.5% with LSM, 26.4% with MET, and 28.2% with LSM + MET groups compared with control group

Cost-effectiveness

Direct medical cost to identify 1 subject with IGT: $117

Direct medical cost of interventions over a 3-year period: $61 per subject in control group, $225 in LSM group, $220 in metformin group, and $270 in LSM + metformin group

Cost to prevent 1 case of diabetes: $1,052 with LSM, $1,095 with metformin, and $1,359 with LSM + metformin

Community based, India 2008 [32]

Evaluate community-based non-pharmacological lifestyle intervention to prevent/reduce risk of developing diabetes/complications

Community based

703 residents aged 10–92 years

35.8 ± 17

7 months

Crude prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes

In adults: 5.1% diabetes and 13.5% pre-diabetes

In youths aged 10–17 years: 5.1% pre-diabetes

Fasting blood glucose level reductions

11% in pre-diabetic adult, 17% in pre-diabetic youth, and 25% in T2DM adults

Improved obesity parameters and dietary intake

Table 2

Summary of studies for prevention of diabetes complications in developing countries

Reference

Objective

Study design

Sample characteristics

Duration (months)

Main findings

n

Mean age (years)

Sun et al. 2008 [36]

Evaluate structured and integrated intervention program on diabetes management

RCT

150 with T2DM

51 ± 1.0

6

Mean change in HbA1c

Intervention group: −0.6% and −0.8% in 12 and 24 weeks, respectively

Control group: +0.1% and +0.1% in 12 and 24 weeks, respectively

Blood glucose

Intervention group: −1.3 and −0.9 mmol/l in 12 and 24 weeks, respectively

Control group: −1.0 and +0.2 mmol/l in 12 and 24 weeks, respectively

Wattana et al. 2007 [37]

Determine effects of diabetes self-management program on glycemic control, CHD risk and Quality of Life

RCT

147 adults with T2DM

Int, 58.40 ± 10.05; control, 55.14 ± 10.22

6

Mean change in HbA1c

Intervention group: −0.68%

Control group: −0.07%

CHD risk factors

Intervention group: −4.83%

Control group: −1.54%

Quality of life (out of 100)

Intervention group: +9.82

Control group: −0.67

Kim, 2007 [38]

Investigate effectiveness of educational intervention using cellular phone and Internet on plasma glucose levels

RCT

51 patients with T2DM

Int, 46.8 ± 8.8; control, 47.5 ± 9.1

3

Mean change in HbA1c

Intervention group: −1.15%

Control group: +0.07%

Mean change in FPG

Intervention group: −0.4 mmol/l

Control group: +0.3 mmol/l

Mean change in 2-h glucose level

Intervention group: −4.7 mmol/l

Control group: +0.8 mmol/l

Kim and Song, 2008 [39]

Evaluate nurse-led intervention using short message service (via cellular phones) and Internet to improve levels of plasma glucose and serum lipids

RCT

34 obese patients with T2DM

Int, 45.5 ± 9.1; control, 48.5 ± 8.0

6

Mean change in HbA1c

Intervention group: −1.22% (3 months) and −1.09% (6 months). Significant

Control group: −0.05% (3 months) and no change (6 months). Not significant

Mean change in fasting plasma glucose

Intervention group: −10.8 (3 months) and −4.6 mg/dl (6 months). Significant

Control group: +4.2 mg/dl (3 months) and +6.0 mg/dl (6 months). Not significant

Int intervention

Table 3

Summary of study intervention characteristics for prevention of development of T2DM

Study/Ref

Intervention characteristics

Intensity, duration, and regularity

Da-Qing, China [29, 30]

Intervention groups—received individual/small-group counseling, delivered by trained physicians, nurses, and technicians

1 individual counseling session

Diet group—those with body mass index (BMI) of ≥25 kg/m2 advised to lose weight, through goal setting on healthy diets. Those with BMI of <25 kg/m2 encouraged to eat healthy diets with prescribed proportions of carbohydrates, fat, and protein

Weekly small-group counseling sessions for 1 month, monthly for 3 months and then once every 3 months

Exercise group—advised to increase amount of leisure time physical exercise

Diet + exercise group—received both interventions as above

Control group—received usual care (general information on diabetes/IGT, brochures containing information on improving diet/physical activity)

IDPP-1, India [31, 40]

Intervention groups—received individual counseling, followed up by telephone

1 individual counseling at the beginning of the study

Lifestyle group—those performing “moderate” activity (physical labor/walk or cycle for >30 min/day/perform exercise regularly) advised to continue routine activities. Those performing sedentary/light physical activity advised to walk briskly for ≥30 min/day

Telephonic contact after 2 weeks or by letter

Advice on diet modification given, including reduction in total calories and refined carbohydrates/fats, avoidance of sugar, and inclusion of fiber-rich foods

Monthly telephonic contacts personal sessions at 6 monthly intervals

Metformin group—received metformin tablets for 3 months and provided diaries to record daily intake of tablets

Lifestyle + metformin group—received both interventions as above

Control group—received advice on standard healthcare

Community based, India [32]

Individual face-to-face culturally sensitive (Tamil language) educational sessions on dietary modification (increasing fiber, reducing fat, portion control), increasing physical activity, and relaxation breathing techniques conducted

10 face-to-face individual education sessions

Group events for reinforcement

Group events, such as cooking/physical activity demonstrations, organized as reinforcement

Additional counseling sessions for individuals with impaired FBG

Table 4

Summary of study intervention characteristics for prevention of complications

Study/Ref

Intervention characteristics

Intensity, duration, and regularity

Sun et al., China [36]

Intervention group—received monthly group sessions on diabetes management/lifestyle modification delivered by an experienced nutritionist

Weekly individual consultation sessions (30 min each) for 6 months

Participants received weekly consultation sessions on diet and medical evaluations including assessment of adverse events, review of blood glucose measurements and adjustment of medications

Additional monthly group sessions

Participants were provided with blood glucose monitors

Control group—received monthly group sessions providing diabetes education

Wattana et al., Thailand [37]

Intervention group—participated in small-group diabetes education classes (120 min) and discussions (90 min)

1 small-group diabetes education class, followed by 4 small-group discussions

Received individual home visits from researcher (45 min) and patient education manual

Participants were taught how to make lifestyle changes, monitor symptoms, record, and interpret their blood glucose levels, blood pressure, and blood lipid levels

2 individual home visit sessions in 6 months

Control group—received usual nursing care, health education during waiting time at hospital and diabetes education class at the end of the study

Kim, Korea [38]

Intervention group—received education and reinforcement on diet, exercise, medication adjustment, and frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose levels led by nurse via mobile phones and internet

Weekly individual sessions via cellular phone and Internet for 6 months

Participants were provided with blood glucose monitors

Control group—met an endocrinologist once or twice during a 3-month study

Those in control group who visited program intervention center received advice on medication, medication dosage, and lifestyle modification from endocrinologist

Kim and Song, Korea [39]

Intervention group—received education and reinforcement on diet, exercise, medication adjustment, and frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose levels led by nurse via mobile phones and internet

Weekly individual sessions via cellular phone or wired Internet for 3 months

Participants were provided with blood glucose monitors

Control group—met an endocrinologist 2–4 times during a 6-month study

Those in control group who visited program intervention center received advice on medication, medication dosage, and lifestyle modification from endocrinologist

Sample Characteristics

Prevention of the Development of T2DM

Five relevant publications from three studies assessing effectiveness of the lifestyle interventions for prevention of the development of T2DM were identified. There was significant heterogeneity in the sample characteristics, such as sample size, age, inclusion criteria, type of sample, and length of follow-up, across the studies (Table 1). The Da-Qing study, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to prevent diabetes progression in people with IGT in an urban area in China, recruited 283 men and 247 women over 25 years of age (mean age, 45 ± 9.1 years) [29, 30]. The active intervention of this program lasted 6 years. The Indian Diabetes Prevention Program (IDPP-1) was a 3-year prospective RCT that recruited an urban population aged 35–55 years old with persistent IGT [31]. The sample of 421 men and 110 women were leaner and yet more insulin resistant than the subjects included in the Finnish DPS [20, 21, 22] and US DPP [23] studies. A community-based diabetes prevention study by Balagopal et al., undertaken in rural India, recruited 703 villagers aged 10–92 years old [32]. The mean age of participants was 35.8 ± 17.0 years and follow-up lasted 7 months.

Blood Glucose Measurements and Criteria for Participant Selection in Studies to Prevent the Development of T2DM

The Da-Qing and IDPP-1 studies used oral glucose tolerance tests to assess blood glucose levels. The Da-Qing study [29] implemented the WHO 1985 criteria [33] to survey and identify people with normoglycemia, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), IGT, and T2DM. The IDPP-1 [31] used the WHO 1999 criteria [34] and the community-based program in India [32] used a glucometer to measure blood glucose and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria 2005 to classify IGT [35]. The WHO 1999 and the ADA 2005 use the same criteria for classifying people with diabetes, IGT and IFG, however, the WHO 1985 classification included higher cut-off values for fasting and 2-h blood glucose levels compared with the later WHO 1999 and ADA 2005 criteria.

Prevention of Diabetes Complications

Four relevant studies assessing effectiveness of lifestyle interventions for the prevention of diabetes complications were identified. The sample characteristics of the intervention studies preventing the development of complications in people with T2DM were heterogeneous (Table 2). One RCT conducted in China aimed at improving glycemic control among overweight people with diabetes recruited 150 individuals, with 100 in the intervention arm and 50 in the control group [36]. With a mean age of 51 ± 1.0 years, this sample was followed up for 6 months. A hospital-based RCT in Thailand recruited 147 adults over 35 years of age [37]. This follow-up lasted 6 months. Of the two RCTs conducted in Korea, one recruited 51 patients [38] and the other 34 patients with T2DM [39], each with a mean age of 47 years. The first sample was followed up over 3 months and the second over 6 months.

Intervention Characteristics

Prevention of the Development of T2DM

The three studies undertaken to prevent the development of T2DM in developing countries included a range of interventions (Table 3). The Da-Qing study comprised three lifestyle intervention groups (diet, exercise, and diet + exercise), with one control group [29]. Overweight participants were advised to improve healthy food habits and increase physical activity through individual and small-group sessions, until they had reached a target body mass index of 23 kg/m2. The IDPP-1 included a lifestyle intervention, medication (metformin tablets) group, combined lifestyle and metformin group and control group [31]. Participants in the lifestyle intervention group received individual advice regarding diet modification and exercise promotion. The intervention by Balagopal et al. comprised an educational intervention for the rural community; however, no control condition was included [32]. Culturally sensitive and linguistically appropriate sessions on dietary modification, physical activity, and simple relaxation breathing techniques constituted the main components of this intervention.

Prevention of Diabetes Complications

There was a significant variation in the interventions employed across the four studies aimed at preventing T2DM complications in developing countries (Table 4). Two studies included an educational intervention [36, 37] and two involved telemedicine-based nurse-led educational intervention [38, 39]; all with comparison control groups. The educational interventions provided information on behavioral and lifestyle change. In one study, individuals in the intervention group received monthly group sessions on the management of diabetes and lifestyle modification delivered by an experienced nutritionist [36]. This group also received weekly consultation sessions on diet and medical evaluation. In comparison, the control group received monthly group sessions comprising diabetes education. In another study, individuals in the intervention group participated in small-group diabetes education classes and received a patient education manual [37]. A researcher also conducted home visit sessions for each of these participants. The control group, in contrast, received usual nursing care before they began diabetes education classes at the end of the study. The two telemedicine-based nurse-led educational interventions comprised education and reinforcement of healthy diet, physical exercise, and medication adjustment to those participants in the intervention groups [38, 39]. The reminders for frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose levels were sent to each participant in the intervention groups, using short message services via cellular mobile phone.

Intervention Effectiveness

Prevention of the Development of T2DM

Each study showed significant reductions in the development of T2DM in the intervention group compared with controls. The Da-Qing study successfully reduced the risk of developing T2DM up to 46% in the lifestyle intervention group compared with the control group [29]. The 20-year follow-up showed that the group-based lifestyle intervention implemented over 6 years prevented or delayed diabetes for up to 14 years, although the long-term effects on reduced cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality were less clear [30]. The IDPP-1 reported high rates of progression of IGT to T2DM in control participants (18.3% incidence per year), while both lifestyle modification and medication reduced T2DM incidence, with a relative risk reduction of 28.5% and 26.4%, respectively, over the 3-year study [31]. Interestingly, the IDPP-1 program did not show an additional benefit of combined lifestyle intervention and medication. The community-based, non-pharmacological diabetes prevention program in rural India was successful in reducing fasting blood glucose levels in adults with IFG by 11%, in youths by 17%, and in adults with T2DM by 25% over the 7-month study, although the numbers in each group were small [32]. In addition, the authors reported improvements in obesity parameters and dietary intake.

Prevention of Diabetes Complications

Significant improvements were observed in glycemic control across the range of diabetes complications prevention studies. One RCT in China improved glycemic control and markers of cardiovascular health in people with T2DM [36]. This program reduced HbA1c levels by 0.8% in the intervention group, compared with an elevation of 0.1% in the reference group over the 6-month study timeframe. Participants in both the intervention and reference groups achieved modest weight loss of 3.7% and 2.5%, respectively. The hospital-based RCT in Thailand demonstrated the efficacy of educational interventions by reducing HbA1c levels by 0.68% in the intervention group, compared with 0.07% in the control group over 6 months [37]. The program also demonstrated reductions in risk factors for coronary heart disease of 4.83% in the intervention group, as opposed to 1.54% in the control group. Similarly, the two RCTs conducted in Korea showed reductions in HbA1c levels in adults with T2DM [38, 39]. One demonstrated reduced HbA1c levels of 1.15% in the intervention group compared with an elevation of 0.07% in the control group over 3 months [38, 39], and the other reduced HbA1c levels by 1.09% in the intervention group, compared with no changes in the control group over the 6-month study [38, 39].

Cost-effectiveness

Prevention of Development of T2DM

The economic evaluation of the IDPP-1 was the only cost-effectiveness study of a diabetes prevention intervention program identified in a developing country [40]. This work concluded that the lifestyle intervention was cost-effective for preventing diabetes among high-risk individuals. The total cost spent to identify one subject with IGT was the equivalent of US $117. The total direct medical cost of the intervention in different groups over the 3-year intervention period was US $61 per subject in the control group, US $225 with lifestyle modification and US $270 with the lifestyle modification + medication group. The cost of the intervention to prevent one case of diabetes was US $1,052 with lifestyle modification and US $1,359 with lifestyle modification + medication. In addition, the number of individuals needed to treat to prevent a case of diabetes was 6.4 with lifestyle modification and 6.5 with lifestyle modification + medication.

Prevention of Development of Complications

No cost-effectiveness studies for preventing T2DM complications in developing countries were identified.

Discussion

Diabetes in developing countries contributes to an increasing proportion of the total global burden of diabetes [2, 14, 41]. Prevention studies have now been conducted in China [29, 30, 36], India [31, 32, 40], Thailand [37], and Korea [38, 39]. Despite the limited number of studies, these studies do provide some important information concerning the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of T2DM and its related complications in developing countries.

Prevention of the Development of T2DM

The non-pharmacological interventions in China [29, 30] and India [31, 32] have demonstrated that the lifestyle interventions can result in significant reductions of risk for the development of T2DM in people with IGT or IFG. The Da-Qing study and the IDPP-1 each reported a significant relative risk reduction in the development of T2DM in the intervention groups, however these were substantially lower than shown in similar trials conducted in developed countries, including the Finnish DPS [20, 21, 22] and US DPP [23]. These latter trials have reported a relative risk reduction of 58% in diabetes incidence in the lifestyle intervention groups over approximately 3-year intervention periods. The lifestyle interventions in these trials focused on weight loss, intake of healthy diet, and promoting modest physical activity, and were delivered by a nutritionist [20] and special educators (“case managers”) [23]. Although the risk reduction was lower in the developing countries, the progression of T2DM incidence in the control group was observed to be greater in the IDPP-1 [31] than in developed countries (IDPP-1 at 18.3% compared with DPS at 6% [42] and DPP at 11% per year [23]). Therefore, any reduction in the progression of T2DM in developing countries is particularly important. There are likely to be numerous explanations for the higher effectiveness in developed countries compared with low-income countries. For example, the existing structure of healthcare systems in developed countries provides a framework for effective intervention studies [43]. Access to healthcare services is likely to be another important factor, as is the reduced level of health literacy in some developing countries. Poor adherence to standard diabetes care may be lower in developing countries as a result of competing priorities that are not present in developed countries.

It is interesting to note that, even in samples with comparable age ranges and obesity levels, Indian cohorts demonstrated an elevated progression rate of T2DM compared with Chinese groups [29]. High prevalence of diabetes and elevated levels of insulin resistance in South Asian populations [44] could have resulted in the observed high rates of T2DM incidence in the control group in the Indian sample. The China Da-Qing intervention [29, 30] was reported to be more effective than the IDPP-1 [31]. The increased intensity and the mode of intervention delivery through trained physicians and nurses in the China Da-Qing study are likely to have influenced these differences. In terms of features of the interventions with higher efficacy, the inclusion of exercise, either alone or in conjunction with diet [29, 30, 31, 32], demonstrated the greatest improvements in risk reduction of diabetes.

Prevention of Diabetes Complications

Maintaining glycemic control, in particular HbA1c levels lower than 7% [45, 46, 47], is important for preventing diabetes-related complications. Early effective intervention for the management of hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications [48]. The non-pharmacological educational interventions in China [36], Thailand [37], and Korea [38, 39] demonstrated reductions of HbA1c levels and other cardiovascular disease risk factors, which might facilitate improvements in diabetes control and prevent disease-related complications. These findings are supported by other studies conducted in developed countries, which have resulted in reduced HbA1c levels, adiposity, and blood pressure in the intervention compared with control groups [25, 26, 49]. For example, a diabetes education and self-management program reduced HbA1c levels by 1.49% in people with newly diagnosed diabetes [25], and a weight reduction and exercise program for older African-American adults reduced HbA1c levels by 1.1% in the intervention compared with control groups [26]. Telehealth-delivered educational interventions in developing countries were also shown to be effective in reducing HbA1c levels in adults with T2DM [38, 39]. Previous work from developed countries has found similar results, demonstrating decreased HbA1c levels in patients receiving telephone-based nurse support programs [50, 51, 52].

The interventions conducted in developed countries that focused on prevention of diabetes-related complications [25, 26, 49, 50, 51, 52] have shown greater improvements in glycemic control compared with those in developing countries [36, 37, 38, 39] (reduction of HbA1c level 0.9–1.7% compared with 0.7–1.1%). As discussed in the earlier paragraph in relation to primary prevention, there are multiple explanations for lower efficacy of such trials in developing countries compared with developed countries. In addition, within the studies in developing countries, the telehealth-delivered educational interventions [38, 39] reported greater reductions in HbA1c compared with those with interpersonal education-based programs [36, 37]. It is possible that the delivery of the interventions via trained nurses in the telehealth studies had an impact on the differentials in efficacy across these studies.

Previous studies have shown that, in addition to lifestyle interventions, pharmacological interventions are effective in the prevention of diabetes-related complications [53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58]. The UKPDS, one of the most widely known studies, showed that anti-hypertensive medications reduced macrovascular endpoints by 37% and diabetes-related mortality by 32% [53]. Similarly, a Danish study conducting a multifactorial intervention, implementing behavioral modification alongside pharmacological therapy, found CVD risk reductions of up to 50% in the intervention compared with the conventional treatment group [57]. Although the studies included in this review did not implement pharmacological interventions, other studies from low- and middle-income countries have shown similar results to those from the developed world with medication therapy within their programs [59, 60, 61, 62]. Therefore, the existing evidence indicates that the use of medication is also important in the management of diabetes and preventing the related complications.

Cost-effectiveness of Programs

The 3-year IDPP-1 confirmed that a non-pharmacological intervention was cost-effective for preventing diabetes among high-risk Indian adults [40]. All the costs incurred in the different intervention groups of IDPP-1 were substantially lower and more cost-effective than the costs incurred in the US DPP [63], where the placebo group cost US $218, the lifestyle intervention group cost US $2,919 and medication group cost US $2,681 over the 3-year intervention period. Sparse data are available examining the costs and cost-effectiveness of the interventions related to prevention of T2DM and its complications, and the studies that do exist come predominantly from developed countries [19, 63, 64, 65]. However, the cost and the cost-effectiveness estimations from the IDPP-1 study suggest that non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of T2DM in developing countries are, in absolute terms, cheaper and more cost-effective compared with studies from the developed world, such as the DPP [63]. This evidence should encourage other developing countries to develop and implement cost-effective, non-pharmacological interventions to stem the escalating problem of T2DM and diabetes-related complications.

Limitations of the Studies/Programs

Prevention of the Development of T2DM

The two Indian studies [31, 32] and the Da-Qing [29] study have some important limitations. Most importantly, these studies identified high-risk individuals using IGT or IFG classifications, which employ relatively expensive screening methods that require individuals to fast and undergo blood tests. In countries such as China and India, where rates of diabetes are extremely high, it is not feasible or cost-effective to screen everyone using such expensive screening methods for diabetes. Low-cost screening methods such as short questionnaires to identify high-risk individuals need to be developed and tested in diabetes prevention programs. Furthermore, in the IDPP-1, only one fifth of the subjects were female [31]; yet, the number of males and females in India with IGT are comparable [2, 9]. In addition, this program selected a sample from a middle class working people with persistent IGT in an urban setting; however it did not include people from rural areas, where two thirds of the population of India live, so generalizability to the whole population is problematic. Although the IDPP-1 estimated the direct medical costs and cost-effectiveness of the program [40], it did not estimate the longer-term cost-effectiveness of the program and the indirect costs which are often many times higher than the direct medical costs. The study by Balagopal et al. did not include a control group, comprised very small numbers of high-risk participants, and lacked sufficient follow-up (7 months) to determine the sustained effect of the intervention [32]. The Da-Qing study achieved a longer-term follow-up; however, it did not report the estimated cost and cost-effectiveness of the program [29, 30].

Prevention of Diabetes Complications

A major limitation of these studies was the short follow-up periods, which varied between 3 [38] and 6 months [36, 37, 39]. This meant the sustainability of the intervention effects could not be evaluated [36, 37, 38, 39]. The time frame did not allow an evaluation of the efficacy of the trials on incidence of complications, only the observation of reduced risk factors associated with the development of complications. In addition, the hospital-based study in China had a large discrepancy in the number of participants in the control and intervention groups [36]. The two Korean RCTs included sample sizes (n = 51 and 34) that were too small to reliably establish intervention effects, particularly over the short follow-ups of 3 and 6 months, respectively [38, 39].

Future Directions

Given the escalating burden of noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries [66], research must begin to focus more heavily on effective chronic disease interventions [43]. Future programs to prevent diabetes and its associated complications in developing countries should focus on the appropriate development, adaptation, and implementation of efficacious, cost-effective intervention methods from developed and developing countries. However, it is also important to evaluate programs that combine more traditional educational and behavioral methods with peer support, telehealth, and other more contemporary approaches that are now being widely utilized around the world [67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72]. To date, diabetes prevention trials in developed as well as developing countries have primarily targeted those people with diagnosed pre-diabetes [20, 23, 29, 31]; however, in resource-constrained settings, it is not feasible to rely on the identification of such high-risk individuals using blood tests so the development of valid and reliable self-report risk assessment tools is also required [73]. In addition, it is very important to develop linguistically appropriate and context-specific lifestyle interventions that are tailored to meet the cultural, religious, and socioeconomic needs of the target communities, with long-term implementation to enable the sustainability of the targeted intervention outcomes.

It is also necessary to consider the development and evaluation of programs that link with local community resources, relevant non-government organizations, and in particular, local health services. Interventions focused on chronic disease prevention and management in developing countries must engage healthcare systems to initiate the improvements and reform that are urgently required to support the long-term primary and secondary prevention and care of those at risk and with these diseases [43].

Conclusions

We conclude that, despite the escalating burden of T2DM in developing countries, the current evidence concerning the prevention of T2DM and its complications in these countries still remains quite limited. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to stem the growing epidemic of T2DM in rapidly developing countries that face significant resource constraints. This must be achieved by linking a significant primary prevention effort in all countries with the use of low-cost behavioral medicine and related approaches to screen and identify high-risk individuals, followed by the development, implementation, and evaluation of community-based programs that are culturally relevant and cost-effective.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank those International Public Health Unit staff located at the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University in both Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia for their worthy comments and feedback.

Conflicts of Interest

We declare that there was no conflict of interest.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment, WHO global report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sicree R, Shaw J, Zimmet P. Diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. In: Unwin N et al., editors. Diabetes Atlas. 4th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. Sixty-first world health assembly, 20 December 2006, a United Nations resolution on diabetes. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alberti KGMM, Zimmet P, Shaw J. International Diabetes Federation: a consensus on type 2 diabetes prevention. Diabet Med. 2007;24:451–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Diabetes Federation, World Health Organization. Diabetes action now, the initiatives of World Health Organization and International Diabetes Federation. Geneva: World Health Organization and International Diabetes Federation; 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization, International Diabetes Federation. The western pacific declaration on diabetes. WHO, Western Pacific Regional Office, IDF Western Pacific Region, Secretariat of the Pacific Community and Western Pacific Diabetes Declaration; 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Diabetes Federation and World Health Organization. The diabetes declaration and strategy for Africa; a call to action and plan of action to prevent and control diabetes and related chronic diseases. International Diabetes Federation, World Health Organization-AFRO and, the African Union; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang W, Lu J, Weng J, Jia W, Ji L, Xiao J, et al. Prevalence of diabetes among men and women in China. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1090–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sicree R, Shaw J, Zimmet P. Diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. In: Gan D, editor. Diabetes Atlas. 3rd ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1047–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. In: Gan D, editor. Diabetes Atlas. 3rd ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roglic G, Unwin N. Mortality attributable to diabetes: estimates for the year 2010. In: Unwin N et al., editors. Diabetes Atlas. 4th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roglic G. Diabetes mortality. In: Gan D, editor. Diabetes Atlas. 3rd ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization. Diabetes facts. WHO, fact sheet, November 2008. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mbanya JCN, Motala AA, Sobngwi E, Assah FK, Enoru ST. Diabetes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet. 2010;375:2254–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown JB, Vistisen D, Sicree R, Shaw J, Nichols G, Zhang P. The economic impacts of diabetes. In: Gan D, editor. Diabetes Atlas. 3rd ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2006.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joslin EP. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 1921;76:79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    World Health Organization Study Group. Prevention of diabetes mellitus—technical report series 844. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eriksson KF, Lindgärde F. Prevention of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus by diet and physical exercise, the 6-year Malmö feasibility study. Diabetologia. 1991;34:891–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1343–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lindstrom J, Louheranta A, Mannelin M, Rastas M, Salminen V, Eriksson J, et al. The Finnish diabetes prevention study (DPS), lifestyle intervention and 3-year results on diet and physical activity. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:3230–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uusitupa M, Louheranta A, Lindstrom J, Valle T, Sundvall J, Eriksson J, et al. The Finnish diabetes prevention study. Br J Nutr. 2000;83(Suppl):137–42.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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;346:393–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gillies CL, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Hsu RT, et al. Pharmacological and lifestyle interventions to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in people with impaired glucose tolerance: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007;334:299–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davies MJ, Heller S, Skinner TC, Campbell MJ, Carey ME, Cradock S, et al. Effectiveness of the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;336:491–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Agurs-Collins TD, Kumanyika SK, Ten Have TR, Adams-Campbell LL. A randomized controlled trial of weight reduction and exercise for diabetes management in older African-American subjects. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1503–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simmons R, Unwin N, Griffin S. International Diabetes Federation: an update of the evidence concerning the prevention of type 2 diabetes. In: Unwin N et al., editors. Diabetes Atlas. 4th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2009.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The World Bank (2009) List of developing countries. July 2008. Available from: http://web.worldbank.org/. Accessed 21 Sept 2009
  29. 29.
    Pan X, Li G, Hu Y, Wang J, Yang W, An Z, 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;20:537–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li G, Zhang P, Wang J, Gregg EW, Yang W, Gong Q, et al. The long-term effect of lifestyle interventions to prevent diabetes in the China Da Qing diabetes prevention study: a 20-year follow-up study. Lancet. 2008;371:1783–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Mary S, Mukesh B, Bhaskar AD, Vijay V, et al. 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;49:289–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Balagopal P, Kamalamma N, Patel TG, Misra R. A community-based diabetes prevention and management education program in a rural village in India. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:1097–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    World Health Organization. Diabetes mellitus: report of a WHO study group. Technical report series 727. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1985.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    World Health Organization. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Report of a WHO Consultation. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2005;26:33–50.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sun J, Wang Y, Chen X, Chen Y, Feng Y, Zhang X, et al. An integrated intervention program to control diabetes in overweight Chinese women and men with type 2 diabetes. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2008;17:514–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wattana C, Srisuphan W, Pothiban L, Upchurch SL. Effects of a diabetes self-management program on glycemic control, coronary heart disease risk, and quality of life among Thai patients with type 2 diabetes. Nurs Health Sci. 2007;9:135–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim HS. A randomized controlled trial of a nurse short-message service by cellular phone for people with diabetes. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007;44:687–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kim HS, Song MS. Technological intervention for obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Appl Nurs Res. 2008;21:84–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ramachandran A, Snehalata C, Yamuna A, Mary S, Ping Z. Cost-effectiveness of the interventions in the primary prevention of diabetes among Asian Indians. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:2548–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Anonymous. Type 2 diabetes—time to change our approach. Lancet 2010;375:2193.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Parikka PI, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1343–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Samb B, Desai N, Nishtar S, Bekedam H, Wright A, Hsu J, et al. Prevention and management of chronic disease: a litmus test for health-systems strengthening in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet. 2010;376:1785–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McKeigue PM, Shah B, Marmot MG. Relation of central obesity and insulin resistance with high diabetes prevalence and cardiovascular risk in South Asians. Lancet. 1991;337:382–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    The Diabetes Control Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). 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;352:837–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2008. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(1):S12–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chaturvedi N. The burden of diabetes and its complications: trends and implications for intervention. Diab Res Clin Pract. 2007;76:S3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dunstan DW, Mori TA, Puddey IB, Beilin LJ. The independent and combined effects of aerobic exercise and dietary fish intake on serum lipids and glycemic control in NIDDM. A randomized controlled study. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:913–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Piette JD, Weinberger M, Kraemer FB, McPhee SJ. Impact of automated calls with nurse follow-up on diabetes treatment outcomes in a department of veterans affairs health care system. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:202–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Aubert RE, Herman WH, Waters J, Moore W, Sutton D, Peterson BL, et al. Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:605–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Meneghini LF, Albisser AM, Goldberg RB, Mintz DH. An electronic case manager for diabetes control. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:591–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 38). BMJ. 1998;317:703–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Waeber B, de la Sierra A, Ruilope LM. The ADVANCE trial: clarifying the role of perindopril/indapamide fixed-dose combination in the reduction of cardiovascular and renal events in patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiovasc Drug. 2009;9:283–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Erdmann E, Charbonnel B, Wilcox RG, Skene AM, Massi-Benedetti M, Yates J, et al. Pioglitazone use and heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and preexisting cardiovascular disease: data from the PROactive study (PROactive 08). Diabetes Care. 2007;30:2773–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gaede P, Lund-Andersen H, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:580–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, Jensen GV, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:383–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE, Parving HH, et al. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:861–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    So WY, Ozaki R, Chan NN, Tong PCY, Ho CS, Lam CWK, et al. Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on survival in 3773 Chinese type 2 diabetic patients. Hypertension. 2004;44:294–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chogtu B, Singh NP, Chawla S, Gupta U. Impact of glitazones on metabolic and haemodynamic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Singap Med J. 2009;50:395–9.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chan JCN, Ko GTC, Leung DHY, Cheung RCK, Cheung MYF, So WY, et al. Long-term effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and metabolic control in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. Kidney Int. 2000;57:590–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chan JCN, Cockram CS, Nicholls MG, Cheung CK, Swaminathan R. Comparison of enalapril and nifedipine in treating non-insulin dependent diabetes associated with hypertension: 1 year analysis. BMJ. 1992;305:981–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Diabetes Prevention Research Group. Costs associated with the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the diabetes prevention program. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chiasson JL, Josse RG, Gomis R, Hanefeld M, Karasik A, Laakso M. Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the STOP-NIDDM randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359:2072–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Josse RG, Mcguire AJ, Saal GB. A review of the economic evidence for acarbose in the prevention of diabetes and cardiovascular events in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:847–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Miranda JJ, Kinra S, Casas JP, Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Non-communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries: context, determinants and health policy. Trop Med Int Health. 2008;13:1225–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fisher EB, Earp JA, Maman S, Zolotor A. Cross-cultural and international adaptation of peer support for diabetes management. Fam Pract. 2010;27(Suppl):i6–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lorig K, Ritter PL, Villa FJ, Armas J. Community-based peer-led diabetes self-management: a randomized trial. Diab Educ. 2009;35:641–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lorig K, Ritter PL, Villa F, Piette JD. Spanish diabetes self-management with and without automated telephone reinforcement. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:408–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Heisler M. Different models to mobilize peer support to improve diabetes self-management and clinical outcomes: evidence, logistics, evaluation considerations and needs for future research. Fam Pract. 2009;17:1–10.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    World Health Organization. Peer support program in diabetes. Report of a WHO consultation, 5–7 November 2007.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Griffiths C, Motlib J, Azad A, Ramsay J, Eldridge S, Feder G, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a lay-led self-management programme for Bangladeshi patients with chronic disease. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55:831–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Colagiuri R, Girgis S, Gomez M, Walker K, Colagiuri S, O’Dea K. National evidence based guideline for the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes. Canberra: Diabetes Australia and the NHMRC; 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lal B. Rawal
    • 1
  • Robyn J. Tapp
    • 2
    • 3
  • Emily D. Williams
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carina Chan
    • 4
  • Shajahan Yasin
    • 4
  • Brian Oldenburg
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public Health and Preventive MedicineMonash University, The Alfred HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.International Centre for Circulatory Health, NHLI, Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, Monash Medical Centre Southern Clinical SchoolMonash UniversityMonashAustralia
  4. 4.School of Medicine and Health SciencesMonash University (Sunway Campus)MonashMalaysia

Personalised recommendations