This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Non-Randomized Studies (funded, eHealth) (105) mHealth for Wellness, Behavior Change and Prevention (2894) Telehealth and Telemonitoring (1698) Innovations and Technology for Healthy Eating Education (419) Caregiving and Parenting for Chronic Pediatric Diseases (83) Obesity and Nutrition as Public Health Problem (305) Diabetes Prevention (86) Telemedicine for Diabetes (95) mHealth in the Developing World/LMICs, Underserved Communities, and for Global Health (569)

Published on in Vol 10, No 3 (2021): March

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/25699, first published .
Telehealth Diabetes Prevention Intervention for the Next Generation of African American Youth: Protocol for a Pilot Trial

Telehealth Diabetes Prevention Intervention for the Next Generation of African American Youth: Protocol for a Pilot Trial

Telehealth Diabetes Prevention Intervention for the Next Generation of African American Youth: Protocol for a Pilot Trial

Authors of this article:

Abigail Gamble1, 2, 3 Author Orcid Image ;   Bettina M Beech4 Author Orcid Image ;   Breanna C Wade1 Author Orcid Image ;   Victor D Sutton1, 5 Author Orcid Image ;   Crystal Lim6 Author Orcid Image ;   Shanda Sandridge7 Author Orcid Image ;   Michael A Welsch8 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (4) Metrics

    Protocol

    1Department of Preventive Medicine, John D Bower School of Population Health, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States

    2Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States

    3Myrlie Evers-Williams Institute for the Elimination of Health Disparities, John D Bower School of Population Health, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States

    4Department of Health Systems and Population Health Science, College of Medicine, University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States

    5Office of Preventive Health and Health Equity, Mississippi State Department of Health, Ridgeland, MS, United States

    6Division of Psychology, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States

    7Pediatric Gastroenterology, Children's Healthcare of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, United States

    8Department of Population Health Science, John D Bower School of Population Health, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States

    *all authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Abigail Gamble, MS, PhD

    Department of Preventive Medicine

    John D Bower School of Population Health

    University of Mississippi Medical Center

    2500 N State St

    Jackson, MS, 39216

    United States

    Phone: 1 6018159065

    Email: agamble2@umc.edu


    Background: In 1999, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was identified as an emerging epidemic in youth, and racial and ethnic minority youth were identified with high risk. Two decades later, no gold standard T2DM prevention intervention has been established for this population.

    Objective: This study tests the efficacy of a telehealth diabetes prevention intervention for African American (AA) families with children with risk for T2DM. Concurrently, investigators aim to evaluate an implementation strategy for the uptake of the intervention by the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s (UMMC) pediatric weight management clinic.

    Methods: This single-arm trial will enroll 20 parents with overweight or obesity of children (8-11 years) with overweight or obesity, both of whom are at risk for T2DM. Parents will meet in small groups (5 parents per group) weekly for 11 weeks and then monthly for 4 monthly maintenance sessions via videoconference using Wi-Fi–enabled iPads with cellular connectivity. The intervention will be adapted from the National Diabetes Prevention Program and Power to Prevent, a diabetes prevention program tailored for AA families. The same lifestyle intervention facilitated by a racially concordant lifestyle coach trained in the Diabetes Prevention Program will be delivered to all groups (n=4). Participants will be recruited in-person during patient encounters at the UMMC’s pediatric weight management clinic. Sessions will consist of dietary and physical activity behavior change strategies facilitated using problem-solving and goal-setting skills. The implementation strategy has 2 targets: the pediatric weight management clinic site and clinical team and parents of children at risk for T2DM engaged in intensive obesity treatment to prevent T2DM. The multifaceted implementation protocol includes 4 discrete strategies: creating a new clinical team, changing the service site, intervening with families, and promoting organizational readiness for change.

    Results: Recruitment and enrollment began in December 2020, and the intervention is scheduled to be delivered to the first cohort of parents in March 2021. The results are expected to be submitted for publication beginning in November 2021 through 2022. The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial will include changes from baseline to 12 and 30 weeks in the child BMI z score and parent BMI. The implementation evaluation will include multiple measures of feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, and efficacy. This protocol was approved by the UMMC’s Institutional Review Board (#2020V0249).

    Conclusions: The proposed intervention approach is supported by the scientific literature and is scalable given the current and future health care subsidies for telehealth. Findings from this pilot trial will begin to address critical barriers to defining a gold standard lifestyle intervention for AA families with children at risk for T2DM. If effective, the intervention could be feasibly disseminated to treat obesity and prevent T2DM in high-risk AA pediatric populations.

    International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/25699

    JMIR Res Protoc 2021;10(3):e25699

    doi:10.2196/25699

    Keywords

    prediabetic state; child obesity; telehealth; obesity management; behavioral science; implementation science; Jackson Heart Study; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; preventive medicine; mobile phone 


    Background

    In 1999, Rosenbloom and Winter [1] labeled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in youth as an emerging epidemic, identifying racial and ethnic minority groups, whose proportion in the US population continues to increase [2], at highest risk. T2DM is a chronic state of hyperglycemia that clusters in families because of genetic, cultural, behavioral, and environmental risk factors [3,4]. In 2018, an estimated 32.4 million (10.5%) people of all ages in the United States had T2DM, and an additional 88 million adults (34.5%; ≥18 years) and 1 in 5 youths (12-18 years) were estimated to have had prediabetes [5,6]. Predictions indicate that with rising incidence rates, the proportion of US youth (<20 years) with T2DM may quadruple between 2010 (22,820 youths) and 2050 (84,131 youths [7]), and African American (AA) youth represent a vulnerable pediatric population with high risk [7,8].

    Alarmingly, T2DM presents a more severe and aggressive disease course in youth than in adults [9], and there is no optimal treatment for T2DM in youth [10]. In a retrospective analysis of youth and adults with obesity and impaired glucose tolerance, adolescents experienced more severe insulin resistance than adults with similar adiposity and glycemic status [9]. Of particular concern are the results from the recent RISE (Restoring Insulin Secretion) Pediatric Medication Study that evaluated whether β-cell function and metabolic control could be effectively altered by a pharmacological intervention [11]. Results from this randomized controlled trial with 91 pubertal youths (10-19 years) with obesity and existing impaired glucose tolerance randomized to 12 months of metformin showed that the early pharmacologic intervention was ineffective in slowing disease progression [11]. These findings underscore the need for strategies to prevent or delay the onset of T2DM in youth at high risk [12].

    Prediabetes is a precursor to T2DM, characterized by hyperglycemic parameters below the diabetes threshold [13,14]. An estimated 5% to 10% of prediabetes cases advance to T2DM per annum [15], and according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA), up to 70% of people with prediabetes will progress to T2DM at some point in their lifetime [16]. Although prediabetes may never progress to T2DM, unfavorable cardiometabolic profiles remain among people with prediabetes, putting them at increased risk for cardiovascular-related morbidities and premature mortality [17]. Consequently, youth with prediabetes are faced with earlier and prolonged exposure to myriad cardiometabolic abnormalities, accentuating the critical need for obesity treatment in the primary prevention of T2DM in youth [7,10].

    Diabetes Prevention

    Studies have indicated that adults with prediabetes can mitigate T2DM prognosis by taking preventive action, such as participation in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) [18]. The DPP began as a multisite randomized controlled trial, which demonstrated the effectiveness of a 12-month intensive lifestyle intervention over pharmaceutical treatment for preventing or delaying T2DM among adult participants with prediabetes across all racial and ethnic groups [19]. At 2.8- and 10-year follow-up, participants randomized to the lifestyle intervention group reduced their risk of developing T2DM by 58% and 34% compared with 31% and 18% in the metformin group, respectively [20,21]. In 2010, US Congress authorized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the dissemination of the DPP [18] as a targeted strategy and population approach to reduce the incidence of T2DM among adults with prediabetes [22].

    Intensive lifestyle modification is the recommended treatment for pediatric patients with prediabetes [23]; however, there is no gold standard lifestyle intervention to prevent T2DM in youth. Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of lifestyle interventions for youth with overweight or obesity and those at risk for T2DM and the importance of tailored interventions for racial and ethnic minority groups; however, limited efficacy has been shown in reducing T2DM risk and improving obesity outcomes [24-26]. Intervention studies with youth have also been hindered by the insufficient representation of racial and ethnic minority youth at high risk for T2DM in obesity treatment trials [27]. Power to Prevent is a diabetes prevention intervention from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention based on the DPP and tailored for AA families [28]. To our knowledge, this intervention has not yet been evaluated among AA families with children at risk for T2DM or disseminated through health care institutions. Given the restrictions on in-person gatherings because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consistent literature reporting high attrition rates among in-person interventions, there is a need for novel and sustainable implementation modalities for delivering lifestyle interventions to racial and ethnic minority families at high risk for T2DM [24].

    Telehealth has demonstrated effectiveness in delivering obesity and prediabetes treatment [29-33] and has mitigated barriers to accessing care for millions of Americans [31]. In particular, videoconferencing has been widely used to deliver effective T2DM care for adult and young patients [33-36] and has recently established efficacy for group-based interventions [37-39]. In a review of 17 lifestyle intervention studies, the authors found that tablet-based group videoconferencing was feasible, accessible, and acceptable, regardless of participants’ digital literacy (technology skills) [37]. Across studies, videoconferencing groups cultivated cohesiveness and bonding similar to in-person settings, and participants developed behavioral skills including lifestyle behaviors to treat obesity and demonstrated improved health outcomes along with high attendance rates (66%-93.8%) and few dropouts [37]. Intervention group sizes averaged from 5 to 7 participants and met weekly for 1 hour over 12 to 26 sessions in total [37]. The use of telehealth technology to deliver a family-based lifestyle diabetes prevention intervention tailored for AA families is likely to offer a scalable approach to reduce T2DM among high-risk youth [40-42].

    Objectives

    The Telehealth Diabetes Prevention Intervention for the Next Generation of African American Youth (TELE-GEN) pilot trial proposes implementing and evaluating a diabetes prevention intervention based on the Power to Prevent program for AA parents of children (8-11 years) who are both overweight or obese and at risk for T2DM. Historically, a lengthy effectiveness study conducted under ideal circumstances would be the next step in identifying a gold standard lifestyle intervention to prevent T2DM in AA youth; however, standard effectiveness studies are limited by their inability for rapid translation and the need for subsequent implementation studies to validate utility in real-world settings [43]. Hybrid research designs leverage the rigor of clinical trials and implementation science to foster rapid translation and effective implementation [33,43]. Thus, in partnership with the Center for Telehealth at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) and pediatric weight management clinic, we propose a novel effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II research design [43] with the coprimary aim to (1) conduct a 30-week, single-arm pilot trial with at-risk parents of at-risk children to assess the early efficacy of Power to Prevent delivered using small group-based videoconferencing to reduce BMI in parents (n=20) and stabilize or reduce BMI z scores in children (n=20), while (2) conducting a comprehensive evaluation of a multifaceted implementation strategy for the uptake of the intervention by the pediatric weight management clinic at the UMMC in Jackson, Mississippi. The protocol described below was approved by the UMMC’s Institutional Review Board (#2020V0249).


    Study Setting

    The Diabetes Belt is a distinct geographic region in the southern United States where county-level adult T2DM rates (≥11%) are especially high and obesity and physical inactivity account for one-third of all diagnosed cases [44]. Mississippi is the only state in which every county (82 counties) is represented by the Diabetes Belt. According to America’s Health Rankings 2019 Report, Mississippi had the third-highest adult T2DM rate (14.3%) in the United States, followed by the second highest adult obesity (39.5%) and physical inactivity (32%) rates [45]. Recent data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (2018-2019) reported in the State of Obesity Report, 2020 [46], identified Mississippi as having the second-highest youth (10-17 years) obesity rate (22.3%) nationally. In addition, AA adults (45.7% [45]) and youth (25.4% [47]) had higher rates of obesity compared with their White counterparts (36.3% [45] and 21.7% [47], respectively). Mississippi also has the highest percentage of Black population (37.8% [48]), and 42% of Mississippi youth are Black compared with 14% nationally [49]. Mississippians experience persistently high rates of poverty (19.7%) and child poverty (27%) [48], and the state is mostly rural and medically underserved [50]; social and environmental factors contribute to poor health and disease. In this context, AA youth in Mississippi are among those at highest risk for T2DM.

    The UMMC is the state’s only academic medical center and has the only children’s hospital in the state. In 2019, 4464 AA children aged 8 to 11 years were treated by a UMMC pediatric clinic, and between November 2019 and April 2020, 170 AA children aged 8 to 11 years were identified with the risk for T2DM in the UMMC’s Prediabetes Registry. UMMC is a minority-serving, research-intensive health care organization with a state-mandated requirement to provide not less than 50% of their services to indigent persons (Mississippi Legal Code Annotated 37-115-27; 2017). The UMMC is also a national leader in telehealth [51] and has one of only 2 National Centers of Excellence in Telehealth in the nation [52]. The UMMC Center for Telehealth has successfully intervened with adults with uncontrolled T2DM [53] using remote patient monitoring and is piloting a similar single-arm feasibility trial with pediatric patients (10-17 years) [54]. Health systems with telehealth technology are encouraged to implement and evaluate weight loss interventions for patients at risk for T2DM [32,40,55], and Mississippi is at the forefront of advancing telehealth and adopting mandates for telehealth care reimbursement [51-53,56]. Thus, Mississippi is an ideal location to test the effectiveness and implementation of lifestyle interventions using telehealth in clinical care settings to treat obesity and prevent T2DM in AA youth at the highest risk for diabetes in the United States.

    Participant Recruitment and Sample Size

    In-person participant screening and enrollment will be conducted in the UMMC pediatric weight management clinic beginning in December 2020. Preliminary screening will the conducted by the clinical provider using a patient eligibility checklist that will screen for both child and parent eligibility. The lifestyle coach will immediately meet in the clinic room following the clinical encounter to conduct a full screening and provide detailed study information to interested parents and children. Consent forms will be verbally described to parents and children, and parent consent, parent permission, and child assent will be obtained before study enrollment.

    Children will be eligible to participate if they are AA, overweight or obese (≥85th percentile for age- and sex-specific BMI), and aged between 8 and 11 years. The child age range was selected to allow for intervention occurring before the average age of youth-onset T2DM, 13 years [10]. The criteria for parents (biological, grandparent, or legal guardian) of eligible children included AA, overweight or obese (BMI ≥25 kg/m2), and coresidence with the child. Although mothers represent most participants in family-based studies, we will not use parents’ sex as an inclusion criterion. Parents and children must also be at risk for T2DM based on the following criteria: (1) parents’ T2DM risk will be assessed using the A1CNow+ system to measure point-of-care hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), which uses a drop of nonfasting blood (5.7%-6.4%), and the ADA prediabetes screening tool (score ≥5); (2) child risk will be based on the BMI percentile (≥85th percentile) and parents’ risk (BMI ≥25 and ADA screening or HbA1c).

    Consistent with previous T2DM prevention interventions [26,57], we will exclude families if the child or parent has a history of T2DM or a screening HbA1c level greater than 6.4%, is taking glucose-lowering medications, is participating in a supervised weight loss program, is pregnant or breastfeeding, has conditions limiting participation, has undergone weight loss surgery, or is moving out of state within 6 months. If a parent becomes pregnant during the study, we will include only child data (index participant) in the analyses. Technology literacy will not be included as an exclusion criterion. Participants will receive technology instruction from the telehealth center and be provided technical support as needed.

    The power calculation, across 5 scenarios, shows detectable effect sizes, ≥−2.5 (SD 0.05) BMI in parents [58] and in children, where a modest reduction in BMI z score (≥0 to <−0.1, SD 0.05) has been associated with improved cardiometabolic risk [59]. In the first 3 scenarios, assuming 10% attrition [37], a minimum of 18 dyads are needed. In scenarios 4 and 5, detectable effect sizes are reported in the case of 0% (n=20 dyads) and 20% (n=16 dyads) attrition. We anticipate 20% attrition, which is consistent with the group- and family-based telehealth lifestyle intervention literature [60-62]. Analyses are based on α=.05 and a conservative two-sided test. An effect size of 1.0 is considered substantial and 0.5 is considered medium. We will obtain reliable effect size estimates to design a pilot randomized controlled trial.

    Conceptual Model

    Family Systems Theory, undergirded by family motivation and Social Learning Theory, and the Telehealth in Chronic Disease (TECH) model are the foundations for the TELE-GEN conceptual model (Figure 1). Social Learning Theory is used to guide intensive lifestyle interventions, such as the DPP [63]. The conceptual basis for the TELE-GEN intervention has evolved from pediatric obesity and T2DM prevention research using Family Systems Theory [64,65] and Social Learning Theory [66,67]. Successful Social Learning Theory–based intervention approaches include helping families make changes to the home food, physical activity, and screen time environment, increasing family motivation to make positive changes, and increasing family functioning around food, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors. These activities are thought to increase family efficacy for making lifestyle modifications and ultimately improving intervention outcomes. This theoretical approach is bolstered by applying the TECH model, which outlines effective pathways for the uptake of clinical telehealth interventions [68]. The TELE-GEN conceptual model is displayed in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Telehealth diabetes prevention intervention and implementation conceptual model. DPP: Diabetes Prevention Program; PA: physical activity.
    View this figure

    Intervention

    Power to Prevent [28] is a diabetes prevention intervention based on the DPP [63] and the Small Steps, Big Rewards Program [69] and is tailored for AA families. The goal of the program is to achieve a 5% to 7% weight loss by making modifications to dietary, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors. In the proposed pilot trial, modification to family dietary, physical activity (≥150 min per week), and sedentary behaviors will be targeted, in addition to individual-level parent behaviors. The Power to PreventLeader Guide and participant materials will be adapted and used in each session. The scientific literature strongly supports family-based approaches to treating youth with overweight or obesity [70]. Thus, group-based sessions (60 min) will be conducted with parents and target the adoption, maintenance, and self-regulation of family-focused dietary, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors. Parent participants will meet weekly for 11 weeks and then monthly for 4 pilot maintenance sessions (15 sessions in total; frequency and duration supported by the literature [71]). Sessions for all groups will be facilitated by a racially concordant lifestyle coach (interventionist) who will be trained in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program standards [72]. Wi-Fi–equipped iPads (12.9”) with cellular connectivity will be used to link families to videoconferencing sessions and to cooking and family-friendly physical activity video demonstrations via YouTube.

    Intervention Targets

    In 2013, an obesity expert panel reviewed 146 lifestyle intervention studies and reported a high degree of evidence for the effectiveness of diet with caloric restriction and increased physical activity for weight loss in adults [73]. Behavioral interventions to treat obesity are deemed safe for youth (4-18 years); however, fostering healthy eating behaviors is recommended over caloric restriction for weight loss in youth [74]. Thus, the dietary targets for children are to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, reduce sugar-sweetened beverage intake, and adopt appropriate portion sizes. The dietary targets for parents are to reduce the overall caloric intake by reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and dietary fat and to increase fruit and vegetable intake. According to the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines [75] and the 2009 American College of Sports Medicine Position Statement [76], the family (parent and child) physical activity goal is 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity (3 or more metabolic equivalents) per day on 5 or more days per week. In addition, based on the recommendations for treating obesity and reducing T2DM risk in youth, the sedentary target will be to reduce out-of-school time watching television, playing video games, and/or using a tablet, iPad, or smartphone to less than 2 hours per day.

    Intervention Sessions

    Group sessions will consist of identifying behavior change strategies leading to achieving the intervention targets (20 minutes), problem solving and decision making to circumvent barriers (20 minutes), and family goal setting and action planning (20 minutes). Parents will be coached to self-select behavior change strategies and practice skills that will enable them to do things such as making healthy foods available in the home, modifying recipes to be healthier, reading food labels, increasing family physical activity, and creating boundaries for the use of technology to reduce out-of-school sedentary time. Parents will be encouraged to use behavioral reinforcement strategies with their children, such as giving immediate praise, creating realistic expectations, and rewarding effort [77]. The practice of brainstorming will be used to encourage parents as a collective group to self-discover solutions to behavior change barriers and support participants in achieving their goals. Brainstorming has proven to be an effective component of problem solving and mitigating barriers to sustainable behavior change [78-82]. Action planning will be used to facilitate parents in setting realistic, attainable, and short-term (weekly) goals for making dietary and physical activity changes. Goal setting positively correlates with weight loss [83], and action planning is an effective self-monitoring strategy that will allow participants to personalize their goals and gradually achieve intervention targets [84,85].

    Intervention Participant Retention

    Telehealth is an effective retention strategy used in the DPP [86] and mitigates transportation barriers [87]. The lifestyle coach will dedicate time outside of intervention sessions to build rapport with parents and will function as a personal contact for participants to establish meaningful relationships, send meeting reminders, and schedule and conduct make-up sessions (consistent with DPP [63]) [86]. Participants will be incentivized using attendance raffles for cooking (eg, measuring cups), physical activity equipment (eg, jump rope), and incremental monetary compensation at each assessment point (baseline, US $50; postintervention, US $75; follow-up, US $150) [86]. Study assessments will be conducted in-person at the time of the child’s routine appointment with the pediatric weight management clinic and monetary resources will be allocated to families experiencing transportation barriers.

    Intervention Efficacy Measures

    Primary and secondary outcome measures will be assessed at baseline (week 1), postintervention (week 12), and 4-month follow-up (week 30). The primary outcome measure will be a reduction or stabilization in the child BMI z score (index participant) and a reduction in parent BMI (coparticipant) [88]. Secondary outcomes include anthropometric (waist circumference and body composition), biomarker (HbA1c, blood pressure, resting heart rate, lipid profile, and Tanner stage), behavioral (fruit and vegetable, sugar-sweetened beverage, and sweat and salty snack consumption; family meal frequency; fast food meal frequency; physical activity volume; and sedentary time), psychosocial (self-efficacy, self-regulation, readiness to change, family functioning, and perceived stress), and environmental (home food and physical activity environment and perceived neighborhood support for healthy eating and physical activity) measures (Table 1). All the measurements will be recorded electronically using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) tools hosted at the UMMC [89]. REDCap is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies, providing an intuitive interface for validated data capture; audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures; automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages; and procedures for data integration and interoperability with external sources.

    Table 1. Pilot trial outcome measures.
    Outcome measure and instrumentParticipant
    Anthropometric measures

    		BMI z score


    		Stature (0.1 cm) assessed using Seca stadiometer, and weight (0.1 kg) assessed using Tanita (TBF-400) body composition and weight scale; height and weight measured without shoes; BMI z score using a CDCa SAS program for the 2000 growth charts ages 0 to <20 years [90]Child

    		BMI


    		Stature (0.1 cm) assessed using Seca stadiometer, and weight (0.1 kg) assessed using Tanita (TBF-400) body composition and weight scale; height and weight measured without shoes; BMI calculated using the CDC formula: weight (kg)/(height [m])2 [91]Parent

    		Body composition


    		Tanita (TBF-400 Body Composition Monitor) uses bioelectrical impedance to assess fat and fat-free massParent and child

    		Waist circumference


    		Seca 203 ergonomic circumference measuring tapeParent and child
    Biomarker measures

    		HbA1cb


    		A1CNow+ system [92]; patient-friendly, point-of-care fingerstick with 5 µl blood (nonfasting)Parent and child

    		Lipid profile


    		CardioChek Plus Analyzer [93]; patient-friendly, point-of-care fingerstick with 15-40 µl blood; measures total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, and triglyceridesParent and child

    		Systolic blood pressure


    		IntelliSense professional digital blood pressure monitor using the American Heart Association guidelines for children and adults [94]Parent and child

    		Diastolic blood pressure


    		IntelliSense professional digital blood pressure monitor using the American Heart Association guidelines for children and adults [94]Parent and child

    		Resting heart rate


    		IntelliSense professional digital blood pressure monitor using the American Heart Association guidelines for children and adults [94]Parent and child
    Psychosocial measures

    		Self-efficacy


    		Parental self-efficacy, 14 items (Norman et al [95]); subscales: confidence for encouraging healthy behaviors and role modeling healthy behaviorsParent


    		Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, 10-items (Lassetter et al [96]); modified to assess a sedentary environment (2 items)Child

    		Home physical and social environment


    		Modified Home PA and Food Environment Scale, 100 items (Gattshall et al [97]); subscales: availability and accessibility of food, physical activity equipment, and technology devices; parent role modeling and family policies for food, physical activity, and technology useParent

    		Motivational readiness to change


    		Family Motivational Readiness, 8 items (Rhee et al [98,99]); modified to assess technology and all questions with regard to child and family, 16 items total; subscales: helping child and family eat healthy, physical activity, and limit technologyParent

    		Family functioning


    		McMaster Family Assessment Device, 60 items (Epstein et al [100]; Halliday et al [101]); subscales: problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavior control, and general functioningParent

    		Neighborhood perceptions


    		Neighborhood Perceptions Scale, 31 items (Mujahid et al [102]); subscales: aesthetic quality, walking environment, food availability, safety, violence, social cohesion, and activities with neighborsParent

    		Stress


    		Perceived Stress Scale, 10 items (Cohen et al [103])Parent


    		PROMIS Pediatric Psychological and Physical Stress Scale, 19 items and 26 items (Bevans et al [104])Child
    Behavioral measures

    		Child behavior (subjective)


    		Child Obesity Behavior Questionnaire; 20 items to measure parents’ perception of the child’s dietary, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors (Rhee et al [98])Parent


    		Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire, 9 items (Lassetter et al [96]), modified to assess technology environment, and 5 itemsChild

    		Physical activity volume (objective)


    		ActiGraph GT9X Accelerometer; device worn on the wrist of the nondominant hand for 7 consecutive days to measure volume of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity minutes (greater than 3 metabolic equivalents)Parent and child

    		Sedentary time (objective)


    		ActiGraph GT9X Accelerometer; device worn on the wrist of the nondominant hand for 7 consecutive days to measure volume of low-intensity activity minutes (less than 3 metabolic equivalents)Parent and child
    Other measures

    		Pubertal stage


    		Pubertal Development Scale, 5 items (Carskadon and Acebo [105])Parent and child

    aCDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    bHbA1c: hemoglobin A1c.

    Data Analysis

    Participant sociodemographic characteristics at baseline will be described using means and SDs, medians and ranges, or frequencies with percentages where applicable. The primary outcome evaluation will assess the change in child BMI z score (index participant) and parent BMI (coparticipant) from baseline to 12 and 30 weeks using repeated measures analysis of covariance with child Tanner stage as the covariate. Secondary analyses will include the comparison of anthropometric, biomarker, behavioral, psychosocial, and environmental measures adjusted for other factors. Generalized linear modeling will be used to assess the effect of the intervention, both unadjusted and adjusted (controlling for demographics, baseline BMI z score, and BMI). Data will be analyzed according to intention-to-treat principles [106-108].

    Implementation Strategy

    The proposed implementation strategy has 2 targets: (1) the UMMC’s pediatric weight management clinical setting and clinical care team, which will be modified to support the uptake of the intervention and integration of the lifestyle coach into the clinical care team and (2) parents and children with T2DM risk referred to and engaged in intensive obesity treatment for the prevention of T2DM. The multifaceted implementation plan includes 4 discrete strategies: (1) creating a new clinical team, (2) changing the service site, (3) intervening with families, and (4) assessing organizational readiness [109]. In accordance with the recommendations for reporting implementation protocols [110], each strategy is operationalized in Table 2.

    Table 2. Operationalization of discrete implementation strategies.
    Strategy componentsDiscrete strategy

    		Create a new clinical teamChange service sitesIntervene with familiesReadiness for change
    ActorNurse practitioner; psychologist; lifestyle coachLifestyle coach; parent groupsLifestyle coach; parent groupsNurse practitioner; psychologist; lifestyle coach
    ActionNurse practitioner referral to lifestyle coach for screening and enrollmentIntervention delivered via videoconference; lifestyle support mirroring clinical treatmentLifestyle coach provides support and conducts weekly outreach with parentsIdentify barriers and facilitators, and processes impacting intervention uptake
    TargetIntegrate lifestyle coach as part of the clinical care teamMitigate barriers to participation and engage the parent in treatmentMitigate barriers, retention, and engagementHealth system and clinic workflow context
    DoseContinuousWeekly (×11) and monthly (×4)Point of referral to follow-upContinuous
    OutcomeAcceptability; feasibility; appropriatenessAcceptability; feasibility; appropriateness; fidelity; efficacyAcceptability; feasibility; appropriateness; fidelity; efficacyAcceptability; feasibility; appropriateness
    JustificationAmerican College of Physicians supports clinical care teams [111]; team-based lifestyle care for diabetic patients has been effective [112]TECHa model [68]; telehealth is practical given the COVID-19 pandemic [113]; an effective retention strategy [86] and mitigates transportation barriers [87]; videoconference is feasible, accessible, and acceptable [37]Family Systems Theory [64,65]; Social Learning Theory [66,67]; TECH model [68]Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [114,115]

    aTECH: Telehealth in Chronic Disease.

    Implementation Evaluation

    An iterative formative and process evaluation will be conducted to explore the complex processes, dynamic context, and organizational influences on implementation [116]. A mixed methods realist approach will be used to determine the extent to which the intervention was delivered as intended and whether the implementation strategy was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible [117]. Similar complex designs have been used to evaluate the implementation of lifestyle interventions with new populations and within new settings [116,118-121].

    Evaluation Participants

    The pediatric nurse practitioner, clinical psychologist, lifestyle coach (herein referred to as providers), and parent participants (herein referred to as families) will be asked to participate in our evaluation. The principal investigator (PI) will concurrently, independently, and iteratively collect quantitative and qualitative data throughout the trial. Data collection instruments will be developed in REDCap [89] and iPad accessible. Intervention sessions and study team meetings will be conducted and recorded using Big Blue Button, an open source web conferencing system. Attendance and outreach records will be recorded in a password-protected Microsoft Excel file.

    Evaluation Data Sources

    Five data sources will be used to gather sufficient evaluation data. Brief qualitative interviews will be conducted with providers (across and within waves) and families (within waves) at 3 time points: (1) during the intervention, (2) at postintervention, and (3) at follow-up. Family interviews during the intervention will be conducted by the PI via phone at the families’ convenience, and postsession and follow-up interviews will be conducted in-person during study assessments at the clinic. Provider interviews will be conducted by the PI via Big Blue Button on the UMMC campus. Interviews will probe providers’ and families’ perceptions of the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of the intervention and the impact of telehealth on patient and provider engagement, provider partnerships, treatment outcomes, and access to care. Providers and the PI will also meet weekly for 30 minutes via Big Blue Button to review protocols, discuss implementation progress, identify barriers and solutions, and create action plans for adaptations to improve recruitment, retention, and intervention delivery.

    Parents and the lifestyle coach will be asked to complete brief postsession surveys using their iPads to assess the acceptability and appropriateness of the intervention content, materials, and delivery. The lifestyle coach will be asked to document participation, the Power to Prevent resources that were used, and session components that were delivered and be asked to describe what worked well and the obstacles encountered. The lifestyle coach will record formal attendance and outreach encounters to document participant attendance at each core session and maintenance session, make-up sessions, and any outreach encounters via email, phone, or text message. Session observations will be conducted by the PI using an observation guide during one-third of all sessions to assess implementation fidelity, family engagement, and interactions among families and the lifestyle coach (context).

    Evaluation Measures

    Five fidelity dimensions will be evaluated, including adherence, exposure, quality of delivery, participant responsiveness, and intervention differentiation [122]. Data sources will include brief postsession surveys, session observations, and attendance and outreach records. Four feasibility dimensions will be evaluated, including recruitment, retention, engagement, clinical operations, and scheduling. Data sources will include interviews, surveys, session observations, attendance and outreach records, and meeting notes. Five acceptability dimensions will be evaluated, including changes in the clinical context and clinical team, changes in treatment, intervention materials, frequency and intensity of the intervention, and delivery via telehealth. Interviews and surveys will garner families’ perceptions of the intervention, how their views evolved during the intervention, and opinions of the maintenance phase. Providers’ and families’ perceptions of the importance and benefit of the intervention, impact on access to and engagement in the intervention, optimization of obesity treatment, patients’ experiences, and family and provider engagement will be assessed via interviews, surveys, and outreach and encounter records.

    Data Analysis

    Qualitative meeting notes and clinical and intervention observations will be reviewed and synthesized on an ongoing basis to make immediate adaptations to screening and enrollment procedures, implementation strategies, and intervention session delivery and facilitation. All other evaluation data analyses will be conducted in 3 phases. In phase 1, qualitative and quantitative data sources will be independently analyzed. In phase 2, we will use a side-by-side comparison convergence approach where the qualitative findings are outlined and then converged with the respective quantitative results and efficacy outcomes for synthesis. In phase 3, the interpretation of findings, we will seek to understand if and how our strategy worked, for who, and in what context.


    Recruitment and enrollment began in December 2020, and the first cohort of families will begin the intervention in March 2021. As of March 15, 2021, 10 children and their parents were enrolled in the study; however, intervention delivery had not begun. Future outcomes will be published in peer-reviewed health-related research journals and presented at national, regional, or state professional meetings and conferences. Preliminary findings will position the investigative team to design a subsequent hybrid study that will include a powered pilot randomized controlled trial with a larger sample of families and providers, a usual care control arm, and long-term follow-up; a robust evaluation of a refined implementation protocol; and cost-benefit and return-on-investment analyses.


    The TELE-GEN pilot trial will begin to address critical barriers to defining a gold standard lifestyle intervention for AA families with children at risk for T2DM. The proposed approach is supported by the scientific literature [33,123] and leverages existing infrastructure to engage AA parents in a virtual community, a context most relevant in response to the current COVID-19 global pandemic [124-127]. The proposed study aims and innovative hybrid research design will contribute to advancing translational research by optimizing clinical and implementation science to improve health and reduce disease occurrence [128]. The proposed intervention is also scalable given the current health care subsidies for telehealth interventions [51,129,130] and future subsidies emerging from telehealth demands resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic [124-127]. Finally, the proposed intervention could be feasibly disseminated, adapted, and implemented to treat obesity and prevent T2DM in high-risk AA pediatric populations throughout the United States.

    Acknowledgments

    The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities under award number HHSM2682018000151. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the Mississippi State Department of Health, or the UMMC.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    NIH Peer Review Summary Statement; 2019 COBRE submission.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 336 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    NIH Peer Review Summary Statements; COBRE Submission 2020.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 126 KB
    1. Rosenbloom AL, Joe JR, Young RS, Winter WE. Emerging epidemic of type 2 diabetes in youth. Diabetes Care 1999 Feb;22(2):345-354 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Vespa J, Medina L, Armstrong D. Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060. Washington, DC.: United States Census Bureau; 2020 Feb.   URL: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.html [accessed 2021-03-15]
    3. Prasad RB, Groop L. Genetics of type 2 diabetes-pitfalls and possibilities. Genes (Basel) 2015 Mar 12;6(1):87-123 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Dendup T, Feng X, Clingan S, Astell-Burt T. Environmental Risk Factors for Developing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018 Jan 05;15(1) [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020.   URL: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    6. Andes LJ, Cheng YJ, Rolka DB, Gregg EW, Imperatore G. Prevalence of Prediabetes Among Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States, 2005-2016. JAMA Pediatr 2020 Feb 01;174(2):e194498 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Imperatore G, Boyle JP, Thompson TJ, Case D, Dabelea D, Hamman RF, SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study Group. Diabetes Care 2012 Dec;35(12):2515-2520 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Haire-Joshu D, Hill-Briggs F. The Next Generation of Diabetes Translation: A Path to Health Equity. Annu Rev Public Health 2019 Apr 01;40:391-410. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Arslanian S, Kim JY, Nasr A, Bacha F, Tfayli H, Lee S, et al. Insulin sensitivity across the lifespan from obese adolescents to obese adults with impaired glucose tolerance: Who is worse off? Pediatr Diabetes 2018 Mar;19(2):205-211. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Pulgaron ER, Delamater AM. Obesity and type 2 diabetes in children: epidemiology and treatment. Curr Diab Rep 2014 Aug;14(8):508 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. RISE Consortium. Impact of Insulin and Metformin Versus Metformin Alone on β-Cell Function in Youth With Impaired Glucose Tolerance or Recently Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2018 Aug;41(8):1717-1725 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Nadeau KJ, Anderson BJ, Berg EG, Chiang JL, Chou H, Copeland KC, et al. Youth-Onset Type 2 Diabetes Consensus Report: Current Status, Challenges, and Priorities. Diabetes Care 2016 Sep;39(9):1635-1642 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Bansal N. Prediabetes diagnosis and treatment: A review. World J Diabetes 2015 Mar 15;6(2):296-303 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Buysschaert M, Bergman M. Definition of prediabetes. Med Clin North Am 2011 Mar;95(2):289-297. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Tabák AG, Herder C, Rathmann W, Brunner EJ, Kivimäki M. Prediabetes: a high-risk state for diabetes development. Lancet 2012 Jun 16;379(9833):2279-2290 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Nathan DM, Davidson MB, DeFronzo RA, Heine RJ, Henry RR, Pratley R, American Diabetes Association. Impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance: implications for care. Diabetes Care 2007 Mar;30(3):753-759. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Niiranen TJ, McCabe EL, Jain M, Vasan RS, Larson MG, et al. Lifetime Prevalence and Prognosis of Prediabetes Without Progression to Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2018 Jul;41(7):e117-e118 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Albright AL, Gregg EW. Preventing type 2 diabetes in communities across the U.S.: the National Diabetes Prevention Program. Am J Prev Med 2013 Apr;44(4 Suppl 4):S346-S351. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. The 10-year cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention or metformin for diabetes prevention: an intent-to-treat analysis of the DPP/DPPOS. Diabetes Care 2012 Apr;35(4):723-730 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. 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 Feb 7;346(6):393-403 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Diabetes PPRG, Knowler WC, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Christophi CA, Hoffman HJ, et al. 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet 2009 Nov 14;374(9702):1677-1686 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Subramanian K, Midha I, Chellapilla V. Overcoming the Challenges in Implementing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Prevention Programs Can Decrease the Burden on Healthcare Costs in the United States. J Diabetes Res 2017;2017:2615681 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Magge SN, Goodman E, Armstrong SC, COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, SECTION ON ENDOCRINOLOGY, SECTION ON OBESITY. The Metabolic Syndrome in Children and Adolescents: Shifting the Focus to Cardiometabolic Risk Factor Clustering. Pediatrics 2017 Aug;140(2) [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. McCurley JL, Crawford MA, Gallo LC. Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes in U.S. Hispanic Youth: A Systematic Review of Lifestyle Interventions. Am J Prev Med 2017 Oct;53(4):519-532 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Olson ML, Rentería-Mexía A, Connelly MA, Vega-López S, Soltero EG, Konopken YP, et al. Decreased GlycA after lifestyle intervention among obese, prediabetic adolescent Latinos. J Clin Lipidol 2019;13(1):186-193 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Burnet DL, Plaut AJ, Wolf SA, Huo D, Solomon MC, Dekayie G, et al. Reach-out: a family-based diabetes prevention program for African American youth. J Natl Med Assoc 2011 Mar;103(3):269-277. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. O'Connor EA, Evans CV, Burda BU, Walsh ES, Eder M, Lozano P. Screening for Obesity and Intervention for Weight Management in Children and Adolescents: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2017 Jun 20;317(23):2427-2444. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. US Department of Health and Human Services. Power to Prevent: A Family Lifestyle Approach to Diabetes Prevention. Amazon: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Jul 12, 2012.
    29. Huang J, Lin Y, Wu N. The effectiveness of telemedicine on body mass index: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2019 Aug;25(7):389-401. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Joiner KL, Nam S, Whittemore R. Lifestyle interventions based on the diabetes prevention program delivered via eHealth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 2017 Jul;100:194-207 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Vadheim LM, Patch K, Brokaw SM, Carpenedo D, Butcher MK, Helgerson SD, et al. Telehealth delivery of the diabetes prevention program to rural communities. Transl Behav Med 2017 Jun;7(2):286-291 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Grock S, Ku J, Kim J, Moin T. A Review of Technology-Assisted Interventions for Diabetes Prevention. Curr Diab Rep 2017 Sep 23;17(11):107. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Kaufman N, Khurana I. Using Digital Health Technology to Prevent and Treat Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016 Feb;18 Suppl 1:S56-S68 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Fatehi F, Armfield NR, Dimitrijevic M, Gray LC. Clinical applications of videoconferencing: a scoping review of the literature for the period 2002-2012. J Telemed Telecare 2014 Oct;20(7):377-383. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Verhoeven F, van GL, Dijkstra K, Nijland N, Seydel E, Steehouder M. The contribution of teleconsultation and videoconferencing to diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res 2007;9(5):e37 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Siriwardena LSAN, Wickramasinghe WAS, Perera KLD, Marasinghe RB, Katulanda P, Hewapathirana R. A review of telemedicine interventions in diabetes care. J Telemed Telecare 2012 Apr;18(3):164-168. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Banbury A, Nancarrow S, Dart J, Gray L, Parkinson L. Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2018 Feb 02;20(2):e25 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Nelson E, Yadrich DM, Thompson N, Wright S, Stone K, Adams N, et al. Telemedicine Support Groups for Home Parenteral Nutrition Users. Nutr Clin Pract 2017 Dec;32(6):789-798. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Olthuis JV, Wozney L, Asmundson GJG, Cramm H, Lingley-Pottie P, McGrath PJ. Distance-delivered interventions for PTSD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anxiety Disord 2016 Dec;44:9-26. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Tuckson RV, Edmunds M, Hodgkins ML. Telehealth. N Engl J Med 2017 Oct 19;377(16):1585-1592. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Tuckson RV, Edmunds M, Hodgkins ML. Telehealth. N Engl J Med 2017 Oct 19;377(16):1585-1592. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Mayberry LS, Harper KJ, Osborn CY. Family behaviors and type 2 diabetes: What to target and how to address in interventions for adults with low socioeconomic status. Chronic Illn 2016 Apr 19. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care 2012 Mar;50(3):217-226 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Barker LE, Kirtland KA, Gregg EW, Geiss LS, Thompson TJ. Geographic distribution of diagnosed diabetes in the U.S.: a diabetes belt. Am J Prev Med 2011 Apr;40(4):434-439. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. United Health Foundation. Annual Report, 2019. America's Health Rankings. 2019.   URL: https://assets.americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahr_2019annualreport.pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    46. Warren M, Beck S, Delgado D. The State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier Americ, 2020. Washington, D.C: Trust for America's Health; 2020.   URL: https://www.tfah.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TFAHObesityReport_20.pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    47. Center for Mississippi Health Policy. Chart Book: Results of the Mississippi Child & Youth Prevalence of Obesity Study, 2005 - 2017. Jackson, MS: Center for Mississippi Health Policy; 2019 May.   URL: https://mshealthpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2017-CAYPOS-Chartbook-May-2019.pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    48. U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Mississippi; United States. 2019.   URL: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MS,US/PST045219 [accessed 2021-03-15]
    49. Mississippi Kids Count Factbook, Census Edition. Jackson, MS: Children's Foundation of Mississippi; 2020.   URL: https://childrensfoundationms.org/project/kidscount/ [accessed 2021-03-15]
    50. Mississippi Primary Care Needs Assessment. Jackson, MS: Office of Rural Health and Primary Care, Mississippi State Department of Health; 2016 Mar.   URL: http:/​/www.​msdh.state.ms.us/​msdhsite/​index.cfm/​44,7357,112,63,pdf/​Primary%20Care%20Needs%20Assessment.​pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    51. Center for Mississippi Health Policy. Telemedicine in Mississippi: Defining Boundaries for a New Frontier. Jackson, MS: Center for Mississippi Heath Policy; 2017 Jan.   URL: https://mshealthpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Telemedicine-Issue-Brief-Jan-2017.pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    52. Telehealth Care at UMMC. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Medical Center; 2019.   URL: https://www.umc.edu/Healthcare/Telehealth/Telehealth_Home.html [accessed 2021-03-15]
    53. Davis TC, Hoover KW, Keller S, Replogle WH. Mississippi Diabetes Telehealth Network: A Collaborative Approach to Chronic Care Management. Telemed J E Health 2020 Feb 01;26(2):184-189. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Lim C. Wellness and Weight Family Group Project. 2016 Feb.   URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02677792 [accessed 2021-03-15]
    55. O'Connor E, Senger C, Henninger M, Gaynes B, Coppola E, Soulsby WM. Interventions to Prevent Perinatal Depression: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2019;321(6). [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. The Center for Connected Health Policy. Current State Laws and Reimbursement Policies. Telehealth Policy. West Sacramento, CA: Center for Connected Health Policy; 2019.   URL: https://www.cchpca.org [accessed 2021-03-15]
    57. Ackermann RT, Finch EA, Brizendine E, Zhou H, Marrero DG. Translating the Diabetes Prevention Program into the Community. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008 Oct;35(4):357-363. [CrossRef]
    58. Look AHEAD Research Group, Gregg E, Jakicic J, Blackburn G, Bloomquist P, Bray G, 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 Nov;4(11):913-921 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Kolsgaard MLP, Joner G, Brunborg C, Anderssen SA, Tonstad S, Andersen LF. Reduction in BMI z-score and improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors in obese children and adolescents. The Oslo Adiposity Intervention Study - a hospital/public health nurse combined treatment. BMC Pediatr 2011 May 27;11(1). [CrossRef]
    60. Mazzeo SE, Burnette CB, Stern M, Thornton LM, Bulik CM, Evans RK, et al. Recruitment and retention of families interested in a parent-based pediatric obesity intervention. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2019 Dec;16:100467 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Tripicchio GL, Ammerman AS, Ward DS, Faith MS, Truesdale KP, Burger KS, et al. Clinical-Community Collaboration: A Strategy to Improve Retention and Outcomes in Low-Income Minority Youth in Family-Based Obesity Treatment. Child Obes 2018 Apr;14(3):141-148. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Davis AM, Sampilo M, Gallagher KS, Dean K, Saroja MB, Yu Q, et al. Treating rural paediatric obesity through telemedicine vs. telephone: Outcomes from a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare 2016 Mar;22(2):86-95 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Diabetes P. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP): description of lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Care 2002 Dec;25(12):2165-2171 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    64. Skelton JA, Buehler C, Irby MB, Grzywacz JG. Where are family theories in family-based obesity treatment?: conceptualizing the study of families in pediatric weight management. Int J Obes (Lond) 2012 Jul;36(7):891-900 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Davison KK, Lawson HA, Coatsworth JD. The Family-centered Action Model of Intervention Layout and Implementation (FAMILI): the example of childhood obesity. Health Promot Pract 2012 Jul;13(4):454-461. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Chen M, Wang R, Hung S. Predicting health-promoting self-care behaviors in people with pre-diabetes by applying Bandura social learning theory. Appl Nurs Res 2015 Nov;28(4):299-304. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Nugent LE, Wallston KA. Modified social learning theory re-examined: correlates of self-management behaviors of persons with Type 2 diabetes. J Behav Med 2016 Dec;39(6):947-956. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Salisbury C, Thomas C, O'Cathain A, Rogers A, Pope C, Yardley L, et al. TElehealth in CHronic disease: mixed-methods study to develop the TECH conceptual model for intervention design and evaluation. BMJ Open 2015 Feb 06;5(2):e006448 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. “Small Steps, Big Rewards”: Preventing Type 2 Diabetes. 2009.   URL: https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/fall09/articles/fall09pg10a.html [accessed 2021-03-15]
    70. US Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman DC, Bibbins-Domingo K, Curry SJ, Barry MJ, Davidson KW, et al. Screening for Obesity in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2017 Jun 20;317(23):2417-2426. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Aziz Z, Absetz P, Oldroyd J, Pronk NP, Oldenburg B. A systematic review of real-world diabetes prevention programs: learnings from the last 15 years. Implement Sci 2015 Dec 15;10:172 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program: Standards and Operating Procedures. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2018 Mar 01.   URL: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/pdf/dprp-standards.pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    73. Managing Overweight and Obesity in Adults: Systematic Evidence Review from the Obesity Expert Panel. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2013.   URL: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/media/docs/obesity-evidence-review.pdf [accessed 2021-03-14]
    74. Whitlock EP, O'Connor EA, Williams SB, Beil TL, Lutz KW. Effectiveness of weight management interventions in children: a targeted systematic review for the USPSTF. Pediatrics 2010 Feb;125(2):e396-e418. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.   URL: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/PAG_Advisory_Committee_Report.pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    76. Donnelly JE, Blair SN, Jakicic JM, Manore MM, Rankin JW, Smith BK, et al. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Appropriate physical activity intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009 Feb;41(2):459-471. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Scott HK, Jain A, Cogburn M. Behavior Modification. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; Jan 07, 2021.
    78. Bhattacharya A, Vilardaga R, Kientz J, Munson S. Lessons from Practice: Designing Tools to Facilitate Individualized Support for Quitting Smoking. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 2017 Nov:3057-3070. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Rollnick S, Butler CC, Stott N. Helping smokers make decisions: the enhancement of brief intervention for general medical practice. Patient Educ Couns 1997;31(3):191-203. [Medline]
    80. Lorig K, Ritter PL, Ory MG, Whitelaw N. Effectiveness of a generic chronic disease self-management program for people with type 2 diabetes: a translation study. Diabetes Educ 2013;39(5):655-663. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Ritter PL, Laurent D, Hobbs M. Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Eff Clin Pract 2001;4(6):256-262 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    82. Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, Grumbach K. Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. JAMA 2002 Nov 20;288(19):2469-2475. [Medline]
    83. Pearson ES. Goal setting as a health behavior change strategy in overweight and obese adults: a systematic literature review examining intervention components. Patient Educ Couns 2012 Apr;87(1):32-42. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 2003 Aug;26(1):1-7. [Medline]
    85. Lorig K, Laurent DD, Plant K, Krishnan E, Ritter PL. The components of action planning and their associations with behavior and health outcomes. Chronic Illn 2014 Mar;10(1):50-59. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Retention for Commercial Plans and Employers. Coveragetoolkit.org. 2021.   URL: https://coveragetoolkit.org/commercial-plans/commercial-plans-delivery/commercial-plans-retention/ [accessed 2021-03-15]
    87. Holdsworth E, Thorogood N, Sorhaindo A, Nanchahal K. A Qualitative Study of Participant Engagement With a Weight Loss Intervention. Health Promot Pract 2017 Mar;18(2):245-252. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Millstein R. Measuring outcomes in adult weight loss studies that include diet and physical activity: a systematic review. J Nutr Metab 2014;2014:421423 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009 Apr;42(2):377-381 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019.   URL: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/growthcharts/resources/sas.htm [accessed 2021-03-15]
    91. Calculating BMI Using the Metric System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2014.   URL: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/growthcharts/training/bmiage/page5_1.html [accessed 2021-03-15]
    92. Jiang F, Hou X, Lu J, Zhou J, Lu F, Kan K, et al. Assessment of the performance of A1CNow(+) and development of an error grid analysis graph for comparative hemoglobin A1c measurements. Diabetes Technol Ther 2014 Jun;16(6):363-369 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Bastianelli K, Ledin S, Chen J. Comparing the Accuracy of 2 Point-of-Care Lipid Testing Devices. J Pharm Pract 2017 Oct;30(5):490-497. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Muntner P, Shimbo D, Carey RM, Charleston JB, Gaillard T, Misra S, et al. Measurement of Blood Pressure in Humans: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Hypertension 2019 May;73(5):e35-e66. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Norman, Bohman B, Nyberg G, Schäfer EL. Psychometric Properties of a Scale to Assess Parental Self-Efficacy for Influencing Children's Dietary, Physical Activity, Sedentary, and Screen Time Behaviors in Disadvantaged Areas. Health Educ Behav 2018 Feb;45(1):132-140. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    96. Lassetter JH, Macintosh CI, Williams M, Driessnack M, Ray G, Wisco JJ. Psychometric testing of the healthy eating and physical activity self-efficacy questionnaire and the healthy eating and physical activity behavior recall questionnaire for children. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 2018 Apr;23(2):e12207 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Gattshall ML, Shoup JA, Marshall JA, Crane LA, Estabrooks PA. Validation of a survey instrument to assess home environments for physical activity and healthy eating in overweight children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008 Jan 11;5:3 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    98. Rhee KE, McEachern R, Jelalian E. Parent readiness to change differs for overweight child dietary and physical activity behaviors. J Acad Nutr Diet 2014 Oct;114(10):1601-1610 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. Rhee KE, De Lago CW, Arscott-Mills T, Mehta SD, Davis RK. Factors associated with parental readiness to make changes for overweight children. Pediatrics 2005 Jul;116(1):e94-101. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Epstein N, Baldwin L, Bishop D. The McMaster Family Assessment Device. J Marital Fam Ther 1983;9(2):171-180. [CrossRef]
    101. Halliday JA, Palma CL, Mellor D, Green J, Renzaho AMN. The relationship between family functioning and child and adolescent overweight and obesity: a systematic review. Int J Obes (Lond) 2014 Apr;38(4):480-493. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Mujahid MS, Diez Roux AV, Morenoff JD, Raghunathan T. Assessing the measurement properties of neighborhood scales: from psychometrics to ecometrics. Am J Epidemiol 2007 Apr 15;165(8):858-867. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 1983 Dec;24(4):385-396. [Medline]
    104. Bevans KB, Gardner W, Pajer KA, Becker B, Carle A, Tucker CA, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of the PROMIS® Pediatric Psychological and Physical Stress Experiences Measures. J Pediatr Psychol 2018 Jul 01;43(6):678-692 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Carskadon MA, Acebo C. A self-administered rating scale for pubertal development. J Adolesc Health 1993 May;14(3):190-195. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. McCoy CE. Understanding the Intention-to-treat Principle in Randomized Controlled Trials. West J Emerg Med 2017 Oct;18(6):1075-1078 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ 2001 Nov 13;165(10):1339-1341 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    108. Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspect Clin Res 2011 Jul;2(3):109-112 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015 Feb 12;10:21 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci 2013 Dec 01;8:139 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    111. Doherty RB, Crowley RA, HealthPublic Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians. Principles supporting dynamic clinical care teams: an American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med 2013 Nov 05;159(9):620-626 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    112. Fortmann AL, Walker C, Barger K, Robacker M, Morrisey R, Ortwine K, et al. Care Team Integration in Primary Care Improves One-Year Clinical and Financial Outcomes in Diabetes: A Case for Value-Based Care. Popul Health Manag 2020 Dec;23(6):467-475. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    113. Rauschenberg C, Schick A, Hirjak D, Seidler A, Paetzold I, Apfelbacher C, et al. Evidence Synthesis of Digital Interventions to Mitigate the Negative Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Mental Health: Rapid Meta-review. J Med Internet Res 2021 Mar 10;23(3):e23365 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    114. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009;4:50 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    115. Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, AuYoung M, Moin T, Datta SK, Sparks JB, et al. Implementation findings from a hybrid III implementation-effectiveness trial of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Implement Sci 2017 Jul 26;12(1):94 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    116. Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallace CM, Bowman C, Guihan M, Hagedorn H, et al. The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med 2006 Feb;21 Suppl 2:S1-S8 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    117. Nurjono M, Shrestha P, Lee A, Lim XY, Shiraz F, Tan S, et al. Realist evaluation of a complex integrated care programme: protocol for a mixed methods study. BMJ Open 2018 Mar 01;8(3):e017111. [CrossRef]
    118. Vastine A, Gittelsohn J, Ethelbah B, Anliker J, Caballero B. Formative research and stakeholder participation in intervention development. Am J Health Behav 2005;29(1):57-69. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    119. McKleroy VS, Galbraith JS, Cummings B, Jones P, Harshbarger C, Collins C, ADAPT Team. Adapting evidence-based behavioral interventions for new settings and target populations. AIDS Educ Prev 2006 Aug;18(4 Suppl A):59-73. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    120. Fernandez ME, Ten Hoor GA, van Lieshout S, Rodriguez SA, Beidas RS, Parcel G, et al. Implementation Mapping: Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Implementation Strategies. Front Public Health 2019;7:158 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    121. Fernandez ME, Ruiter RAC, Markham CM, Kok G. Intervention Mapping: Theory- and Evidence-Based Health Promotion Program Planning: Perspective and Examples. Front Public Health 2019;7:209 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev 1998 Jan;18(1):23-45. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. Bright R, Sakurada B. A Population Health Strategy for Diabetes: New Partners, New Opportunities. In: NAM Perspectives. Washington, D.C: National Academy of Medicine; Feb 24, 2016.
    124. Keesara S, Jonas A, Schulman K. Covid-19 and Health Care's Digital Revolution. N Engl J Med 2020 Apr 02. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    125. Calton B, Abedini N, Fratkin M. Telemedicine in the Time of Coronavirus. J Pain Symptom Manage 2020 Mar 31. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    126. Portnoy J, Waller M, Elliott T. Telemedicine in the Era of COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2020 May;8(5):1489-1491 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    127. Hollander JE, Carr BG. Virtually Perfect? Telemedicine for Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1679-1681. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    128. Charting the Future Together: The NHLBI Strategic Mission. Strategic Vision. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health; 2016.   URL: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2017-11/NHLBI-Strategic-Vision-2016_FF.pdf [accessed 2021-03-15]
    129. Medicare Advantage Plan, Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.   URL: https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/telehealth [accessed 2021-03-15]
    130. Elliott VL. Telehealth and Telemedicine: Description and Issues. Congressional Research Service.   URL: https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/757e3b90-ff10-497c-8e8c-ac1bdbdb3aaf.pdf [accessed 2021-03-14]

    ‎
    AA: African American
    ADA: American Diabetes Association
    DPP: Diabetes Prevention Program
    HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c
    PI: principal investigator
    REDCap: Research Electronic Data Capture
    T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus
    TECH: Telehealth in Chronic Disease
    TELE-GEN: Telehealth Diabetes Prevention Intervention for the Next Generation of African American Youth
    UMMC: University of Mississippi Medical Center

    Edited by T Derrick; This paper was peer reviewed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). See the Multimedia Appendixes for the peer-review reports; submitted 20.11.20; accepted 18.12.20; published 31.03.21

    Copyright

    ©Abigail Gamble, Bettina M Beech, Breanna C Wade, Victor D Sutton, Crystal Lim, Shanda Sandridge, Michael A Welsch. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 31.03.2021.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.