Current Diabetes Reports

, 18:8 | Cite as

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

  • O. Kenrik Duru
  • Carol M. Mangione
  • Hector P. Rodriguez
  • Dennis Ross-Degnan
  • J. Frank Wharam
  • Bernard Black
  • Abel Kho
  • Nathalie Huguet
  • Heather Angier
  • Victoria Mayer
  • David Siscovick
  • Jennifer L. Kraschnewski
  • Lizheng Shi
  • Elizabeth Nauman
  • Edward W. Gregg
  • Mohammed K. Ali
  • Pamela Thornton
  • Steven Clauser
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

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.

Recent Findings

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.


Health 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.


This publication was made possible by Cooperative Agreements jointly funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

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. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report: estimates of diabetes and its burden in the United States, 2014. 2014; Accessed 2017–08-14.
  2. 2.
    American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care(36):4.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Hunter CM, McKinnon RA, Esposito L. News from the NIH: research to evaluate “natural experiments” related to obesity and diabetes. Transl Behav Med. 2014;4(2):127–9. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrews, M.. New health plans offer discounts for diabetes care. 2015.
  6. 6.
    WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP). 2017.
  7. 7.
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Ackermann RT, Holmes A, Saha C. Designing a natural experiment to evaluate a national health care-community partnership to prevent type 2 diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rockers PC, Rottingen JA, Shemilt I, Tugwell P, Barnighausen T. Inclusion of quasi-experimental studies in systematic reviews of health systems research. Health Policy. Apr 2015;119(4):511–21. Scholar
  11. 11.
    West SG, Duan N, Pequegnat W, et al. Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health. Aug 2008;98(8):1359–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glass TA, Goodman SN, Hernan MA, Samet JM. Causal inference in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34(1):61–75. Scholar
  13. 13.
    St. Clair T, Cook T, Hallberg K. Examining the internal validity and statistical precision of the comparative interrupted time series design by comparison with a randomized experiment. Am J Eval. 2014;35(3):311–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ryan R, Hill S, Prictor M, McKenzie J. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. Study quality guide. 2013. Accessed 2017-08-14.
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Majumdar S, Soumerai SB. The unhealthy state of health policy research. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(5):w900–8. Scholar
  17. 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. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference 2nd Edition: Wadsworth Publishing; 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ackermann RT, Duru OK, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):550–60. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hernan MA. A good deal of humility: Cochran on observational studies. Obs Stud. 2015;2015(7):194–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmittdiel JA, Adams SR, Goler N, et al. The impact of telephonic wellness coaching on weight loss: a “Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D)” study. Obesity (Silver Spring). Feb 2017;25(2):352–6. Scholar
  24. 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. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sohler N, Matti-Orozco B, Young E, 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
  26. 26.
    Duru OK, Turk N, Ettner SL, 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
  27. 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. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freudenberg N, Franzosa E, Sohler N, Li R, Devlin H, Albu J. The state of evaluation research on food policies to reduce obesity and diabetes among adults in the United States, 2000–2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E182.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kimbro LB, Li J, Turk N, et al. Optimizing enrollment in employer health programs: a comparison of enrollment strategies in the Diabetes Health Plan. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20(8):e311–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adams SR, Goler NC, Sanna RS, 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
  31. 31.
    Duru OK, Mangione CM, Chan C, et al. Evaluation of the diabetes health plan to improve diabetes care and prevention. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmittdiel JA, Brown SD, Neugebauer R, et al. Health-plan and employer-based wellness programs to reduce diabetes risk: the Kaiser Permanente Northern California NEXT-D study. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Natural EXperiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2). (2017).
  34. 34.
    Albu J, Sohler N, Matti-Orozco B, et al. Expansion of electronic health record-based screening, prevention, and management of diabetes in New York City. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wharam JF, Soumerai S, Trinacty C, et al. Impact of emerging health insurance arrangements on diabetes outcomes and disparities: rationale and study design. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Albu JB, Sohler N, Li R, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. Scholar
  38. 38.
    PCORI Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. What We Mean by Engagement 2014; Accessed 2017–02-20.
  39. 39.
    Arkind J, Likumahuwa-Ackman S, Warren N, Dickerson K, Robbins L, Norman K, et al. Lessons learned from developing a patient engagement panel: an OCHIN report. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(5):632–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 41.
    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pub L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 855, 124 Stat. 271, §2001. 2010.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    DeVoe JE, Marino M, Gold R, Hoopes MJ, Cowburn S, O'Malley JP, et al. Community health center use after Oregon’s randomized Medicaid experiment. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(4):312–20. Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 44.
    Hatch B, Tillotson C, Angier H, et al. Using the electronic health record for assessment of health insurance in community health centers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(5):984–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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. 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
  47. 47.
    Hughes LS, Peltz A, Conway PH. State innovation model initiative: a state-led approach to accelerating health care system transformation. JAMA. 2015;313(13):1317–8. Scholar
  48. 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. 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
  50. 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
  51. 51.
    Geiss LS, Wang J, Cheng YJ, Thompson TJ, Barker L, Li Y, et al. Prevalence and incidence trends for diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 20 to 79 years, United States, 1980-2012. JAMA. 2014;312(12):1218–26. Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wilensky GR. The future of the ACA and health care policy in the United States. JAMA. 2017;317(1):21–2. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gold M. Pathways to the use of health services research in policy. Health Serv Res. 2009;44(4):1111–36. Scholar
  54. 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. Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gollust SE, Seymour JW, Pany MJ, Goss A, Meisel ZF, Grande D. Mutual distrust: perspectives from researchers and policy makers on the research to policy gap in 2013 and recommendations for the future. Inquiry. 2017;54:46958017705465.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Kenrik Duru
    • 1
  • Carol M. Mangione
    • 2
  • Hector P. Rodriguez
    • 3
  • Dennis Ross-Degnan
    • 4
  • J. Frank Wharam
    • 4
  • Bernard Black
    • 5
  • Abel Kho
    • 6
  • Nathalie Huguet
    • 7
  • Heather Angier
    • 7
  • Victoria Mayer
    • 8
  • David Siscovick
    • 9
  • Jennifer L. Kraschnewski
    • 10
  • Lizheng Shi
    • 11
  • Elizabeth Nauman
    • 12
  • Edward W. Gregg
    • 13
  • Mohammed K. Ali
    • 13
    • 14
  • Pamela Thornton
    • 15
  • Steven Clauser
    • 16
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, David Geffen School of MedicineUCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and Fielding School of Public HealthUCLALos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.School of Public Health – Health Policy and ManagementUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care InstituteBostonUSA
  5. 5.Pritzker School of Law, Institute for Policy Research, and Kellogg School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  6. 6.Institute of Public Health & MedicineNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  7. 7.Oregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  8. 8.Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  9. 9.The New York Academy of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  10. 10.Department of Medicine, Pediatrics and Public Health SciencesPennsylvania State University College of Medicine at Hershey Medical CenterHersheyUSA
  11. 11.School of Public Health and Tropical MedicineTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA
  12. 12.Louisiana Public Health InstituteNew OrleansUSA
  13. 13.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Diabetes TranslationAtlantaUSA
  14. 14.Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public HealthEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  15. 15.Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic DiseasesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseaseBethesdaUSA
  16. 16.Health Care Delivery and Disparities Research ProgramPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations