Seidel, Richard W.Pardo, Kimberlee A.Estabrooks, Paul A.You, WenWall, Sarah S.Davy, Brenda M.Almeida, Fabio A.2017-01-082017-01-082014-02-011660-4601http://hdl.handle.net/10919/74021Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify patient preferences for different components of a local diabetes prevention program that would improve reach. A secondary purpose was to determine if patient characteristics were related to program preferences. Methods: Participants were identified through electronic medical records from two family medicine clinics in Virginia. Participants completed a mailed survey addressing demographics, economic status, risk factors for diabetes, and preferences regarding diabetes prevention interventions—delivery mode, program length, and duration. Results: Twenty-nine percent of eligible participants responded (n = 142); 83% of participants were at risk for diabetes and 82% had a household income <$20,000. When presented with the choice between a class-based vs. a technology-based program, 83% preferred a technology-based program. Whites were less likely to choose the technology-based program, with no significant differences based on age, education, income, or gender. Conclusions: Contrary to beliefs that lower income individuals may not use technology-based interventions, lower socioeconomic patients indicated a preference for a technology- and telephone-supported diabetes prevention program over in-person class approaches. Findings provide formative data to support the design of a patient-centered, technology-enhanced diabetes prevention program in a real-world setting, thereby increasing potential participation and reach.2003 - 2013 (11) page(s)application/pdfenCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedEnvironmental SciencesPublic, Environmental & Occupational HealthEnvironmental Sciences & Ecologydiabetes prevention programtechnology-enhanced interventionlow income populationspatient preferencesDIETARY BEHAVIOR-CHANGEPHYSICAL-ACTIVITYWEIGHT-LOSSPRIMARY-CAREINTERVENTIONCOMMUNITYRISKTRANSLATIONTECHNOLOGYREDUCTIONArticle - Refereedhttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110202003112