Geerke Duijzer

Publications (2)3.5 Total impact

• Source

  Available from: Annemien Haveman-Nies

  Article: Adapting the SLIM diabetes prevention intervention to a Dutch real-life setting: joint decision making by science and practice.

  Sophia C Jansen, Annemien Haveman-Nies, Geerke Duijzer, Josien Ter Beek, Gerrit J Hiddink, Edith Jm Feskens
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although many evidence-based diabetes prevention interventions exist, they are not easily applicable in real-life settings. Moreover, there is a lack of examples which describe the adaptation process of these interventions to practice. In this paper we present an example of such an adaptation. We adapted the SLIM (Study on Lifestyle intervention and Impaired glucose tolerance Maastricht) diabetes prevention intervention to a Dutch real-life setting, in a joint decision making process of intervention developers and local health care professionals. METHODS: We used 3 adaptation steps in accordance with current adaptation frameworks. In the first step, the elements of the SLIM intervention were identified. In the second step, these elements were judged for their applicability in a real-life setting. In the third step, adaptations were proposed and discussed for those elements which were deemed not applicable. Participants invited for this process included intervention developers and local health care professionals (n=19). RESULTS: In the first adaptation step, a total of 22 intervention elements were identified. In the second step, 12 of these 22 intervention elements were judged as inapplicable. In the third step, a consensus was achieved for the adaptations of all 12 elements. The adapted elements were in the following categories: target population, techniques, intensity, delivery mode, materials, organisational structure, and political and financial conditions. The adaptations either lay in changing the SLIM protocol (6 elements) or the real-life working procedures (1 element), or a combination of both (4 elements). CONCLUSIONS: The positive result of this study is that a consensus was achieved within a relatively short time period (nine months) between the developers of the SLIM intervention and local health care professionals on the adaptations needed to make SLIM applicable in a Dutch real-life setting. Our example shows that it is possible to combine the perspectives of scientists and practitioners, and to find a balance between evidence-base and applicability concerns.
  BMC Public Health 05/2013; 13(1):457. · 2.00 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: Annemien Haveman-Nies

  Article: Translating the SLIM diabetes prevention intervention into SLIMMER: implications for the Dutch primary health care.

  Geerke Duijzer, Sophia C Jansen, Annemien Haveman-Nies, Rykel van Bruggen, Josien Ter Beek, Gerrit J Hiddink, Edith J M Feskens
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: All over the world, prevalence and incidence rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus are rising rapidly. Several trials have demonstrated that prevention by lifestyle intervention is (cost-) effective. This calls for translation of these trials to primary health care. This article gives an overview of the translation of the SLIM diabetes prevention intervention to a Dutch real-life setting and discusses the role of primary health care in implementing lifestyle intervention programmes. Currently, a 1-year pilot study, consisting of a dietary and physical activity part, performed by three GPs, three practice nurses, three dieticians and four physiotherapists is being conducted. The process of translating the SLIM lifestyle intervention to regular primary health care is measured by means of the process indicators: reach, acceptability, implementation integrity, applicability and key factors for success and failure of the intervention. Data will be derived from programme records, observations, focus groups and interviews. Based on these results, our programme will be adjusted to fit the role conception of the professionals and the organization structure in which they work.
  Family Practice 04/2012; 29 Suppl 1:i145-i152. · 1.50 Impact Factor