KEY FIGURE

Highlights

• Lifestyle modification is central to diabetes prevention and self-management.

• Practical, affordable, and culturally adapted programs are essential.

• KDPS-LSM is tailored for the Korean healthcare and sociocultural context.

• KDPS-LSM integrates intensive nutrition therapy and “10 habits” using the TTM model.

• Feasible educator-supported delivery ensures affordability and sustainability.

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes is one of the most pressing global public health concerns, contributing substantially to healthcare expenditures and socioeconomic burden worldwide [1]. According to the International Diabetes Federation, 589 million adults aged 20 to 79 are currently living with diabetes, and this number is projected to rise to 853 million by 2050 [2]. As diabetes is largely preventable, increasing attention has been directed toward identifying effective prevention strategies that are both clinically impactful and economically sustainable [3].

Among these, lifestyle modification (LSM) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical approaches. By promoting healthier eating habits, increasing physical activity, and supporting behavioral change, LSM targets modifiable risk factors that are central to the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) [4]. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated that structured LSM programs can significantly reduce diabetes incidence, especially in high-risk individuals such as those with prediabetes [4-6]. Moreover, growing evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of LSM, making it a valuable strategy not only for improving health outcomes but also for reducing long-term healthcare expenditures [7,8].

This paper explores the role of LSM in the prevention of T2DM. It reviews major risk factors and highlights the importance of early intervention. In addition, it examines the effectiveness, economic value, and real-world applicability of LSM programs across various populations. Through this review, the paper aims to provide insights for designing sustainable and culturally appropriate diabetes prevention strategies, with particular attention to the Korean context.

BACKGROUND ON DIABETES PREVENTION

Risk factors of type 2 diabetes mellitus

T2DM is a complex metabolic disorder associated with metabolic dysfunction syndrome, and its development is primarily driven by insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction [9]. These pathophysiological mechanisms are influenced by a range of factors, including genetic predispositions, environmental exposures, and lifestyle behaviors [10].

Genetic predisposition plays a substantial role in diabetes risk. Genome-wide association studies have revealed that most genetic variants increase susceptibility by impairing insulin secretion, while fewer influence insulin sensitivity [11]. Individuals with one parent affected by T2DM have an estimated 40% lifetime risk, rising to 70% when both parents are affected [12,13]. However, a large part of this familial aggregation reflects the heritability of obesity, which is a primary driver of T2DM, rather than diabetes itself [12]. Ethnicity also contributes to risk variation. Native Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans have consistently shown higher prevalence rates compared to White populations [14,15]. Although these differences were once attributed mainly to genetic differences, recent evidence indicates that social and environmental conditions, such as disparities in access to healthcare, healthy food, or opportunities for healthy lifestyle behaviors, may play a more critical role [14,16].

While non-modifiable risk factors help identify individuals at elevated risk, modifiable lifestyle factors play a crucial role in the actual development and prevention of T2DM. Behaviors such as poor diet and physical inactivity are central contributors to disease onset and progression [17]. A systematic review has identified food environment, walkability, and access to physical activity resources as environmental elements associated with increased or decreased diabetes risk [18,19]. Evidence from large-scale observational cohort studies has shown that individuals who adopt healthier behaviors such as engaging in regular physical activity, maintaining a balanced diet, and avoiding smoking have a significantly lower risk of developing diabetes [20,21].

Although non-modifiable factors establish baseline risk, modifiable lifestyle behaviors offer a critical and actionable window for prevention. Since most cases of T2DM are preventable through healthier lifestyle choices, early identification and targeted intervention focused on these modifiable risk factors are essential. This underscores the importance of timely preventive efforts before irreversible metabolic changes occur.

Importance of early intervention in diabetes prevention

Early intervention and treatment for diabetes prevention can significantly reduce not only the incidence of diabetes but also broader health risks. In this context, a meta-analysis found that effective preventive interventions for diabetes were associated with a 17% reduction in all-cause mortality [5].

Currently, there are no approved pharmacological treatments for prediabetes. However, some studies have demonstrated that early intervention—through LSM or pharmacotherapy—can delay the progression to T2DM [22]. Accordingly, the American Diabetes Association recommends LSM as the primary therapeutic approach for individuals with prediabetes [23].

In Korea, recent data indicate some positive trends in health behaviors among adults with diabetes, such as increased physical activity, decreased smoking rates, and reduced alcohol consumption [24]. However, these behavioral improvements have not been accompanied by meaningful reductions in obesity or abdominal obesity, which remain prevalent in this population [24]. This indicates that while progress has been made, further enhancement of health behaviors and additional interventions are still needed to achieve optimal clinical outcomes. In particular, Korea’s traditionally high carbohydrate intake may contribute to ongoing challenges in diabetes management, underscoring the importance of comprehensive dietary strategies in conjunction with behavioral support.

LIFESTYLE MODIFICATION PROGRAMS

A number of intervention trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of structured LSM programs in preventing T2DM across diverse populations and settings. Based on the findings from the seven selected studies, LSM programs have adopted various approaches in terms of structure, intensity, and delivery methods (Table 1). Most programs provided a combination of dietary and physical activity counseling, but they differed in duration, frequency, behavioral strategies, and the level of professional involvement.

Some programs offered individualized or semi-structured counseling delivered by trained professionals. For example, Oldroyd et al. [25] applied the ‘stages of change’ model through one-on-one sessions with dietitians and physiotherapists over 2 years. Others, like Bo et al. [26] and Roumen et al. [27], adopted more structured protocols with periodic sessions focused on diet and exercise, including both aerobic and resistance training. These longer-term and professionally supported interventions demonstrated positive effects on weight, insulin sensitivity, and diabetes incidence. However, their effectiveness may have been limited by factors such as infrequent contact or lack of follow-up to support long-term behavior maintenance.

Several studies also examined interventions delivered in community or workplace settings, which may offer better feasibility in real-world contexts. Oh et al. [28] implemented a nurse-led, multi-component lifestyle program in a Korean community setting, while Nanri et al. [29] conducted a behavior- focused intervention for office workers that included goal setting and self-monitoring tools like pedometers. Maruyama et al. [30] introduced a hybrid model combining in-person sessions with web-based monitoring. The lower-intensity interventions described above, generally characterized by shorter program duration, less frequent participant contact, reduced involvement of multidisciplinary teams, and fewer structured components than high-intensity intervention, as well as context-specific approaches tailored to settings such as community or workplace environments with simplified delivery strategies or self-monitoring tools, have demonstrated beneficial effects in diabetes prevention. However, their effectiveness has often been constrained by methodological limitations, including brief study durations, small sample sizes, and insufficient assessment of long-term adherence.

Some studies, like Lu et al. [31], integrated lifestyle education with pharmacologic treatments. While this approach achieved excellent metabolic outcomes and diabetes prevention, the added effect of medication complicates the interpretation of the efficacy of the lifestyle intervention itself.

Collectively, these findings suggest that while diverse in format, lifestyle interventions can be beneficial when structured and supported appropriately. Nevertheless, most studies were limited by short follow-up periods and a lack of data on long-term behavioral sustainability. Few programs incorporated strategies to maintain adherence after the intervention ended, and standardized tools for monitoring lifestyle change were seldom used.

These implementation challenges highlight the need to identify scalable and sustainable lifestyle strategies that can maintain health gains over time. In light of these considerations, recent studies have turned attention to the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

Recent studies have demonstrated that LSM is a highly cost-effective strategy for preventing T2DM [32]. Ma et al. [32] conducted an economic evaluation using a diabetes simulation model and found that structured lifestyle interventions for individuals with prediabetes significantly reduced diabetes incidence while also lowering healthcare costs—making the intervention both effective and economically favorable. Similarly, Jacobs-van der Bruggen et al. [8] used modeling based on multiple clinical trials and concluded that lifestyle programs for people with T2DM were generally cost-effective, with some programs providing strong health benefits at relatively low cost. Together, these findings highlight LSM as a valuable and economically sound approach for both preventing and managing T2DM. However, the evidence for the long-term sustainability of health improvements remains limited, and future research is needed to compare the cost-effectiveness of different intervention strategies and to assess their long-term maintenance effects [8].

COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL DIABETES PREVENTION PROGRAMS

Various large-scale randomized controlled trials conducted both globally and locally have consistently demonstrated that structured LSM interventions are effective in preventing T2DM in high-risk populations [33-37].

Table 2 provides an overview of each study’s key characteristics, including the study population, study groups, and main outcomes related to diabetes risk reduction. These studies have confirmed that intensive LSM can lower the incidence of diabetes by approximately 30% to 60%, but there were differences in aspects such as target age range, body mass index (BMI) profiles, risk classification, and how intervention and control groups were organized based on each country’s specific context.

Table 3 presents additional details about the specific components of the lifestyle interventions implemented in each study and compares their respective strengths and limitations. For example, the China Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study was the first randomized trial to demonstrate that LSM involving changes in diet and physical activity could prevent diabetes. However, its generalizability was limited due to its cluster randomized setting, and the behavioral intervention was less standardized, with no structured manuals, inconsistent delivery across educators, limited individual tailoring, and no clearly defined quantitative goals for weight loss or physical activity [33]. The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS) offered practical strategies such as regular dietary counseling sessions, personalized exercise guidance, and self-monitoring, which showed high adherence but required significant time and cost investment [34]. In contrast, the U.S. Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) delivered a highly structured, goal-oriented lifestyle intervention with clear targets for weight loss and physical activity, multiple individual and group counseling sessions, and direct comparison with metformin (MET) treatment [35]. This provided strong long-term evidence but also highlighted the challenge of real-world adoption due to its intensive and resource-heavy design. Meanwhile, the Japan Diabetes Prevention Program and the Indian Diabetes Prevention Programme demonstrated the potential of lower-intensity, culturally tailored approaches using simpler individual or group counseling, behavior modification education, and regular phone follow-ups suitable for Asian populations with generally lower BMI profiles [36,37]. However, these studies also underscored practical difficulties in sustaining consistent behavior change and providing standardized, repeated education and support over time [37]. Taken together, the content outlined in Tables 2 and 3 illustrates both the proven effectiveness and the practical operational challenges of these global programs, providing important implications for the development of sustainable diabetes prevention strategies.

Therefore, although not included in the comparison table, some recent studies implemented programs aimed at practically applying lifestyle interventions within public health systems to address these challenges. In Australia, both the Greater Green Triangle Diabetes Prevention Program and the Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study modified the DPS model to create pragmatic formats suitable for primary care [38,39]. These programs delivered short-term interventions targeting individuals at high risk of developing T2DM through local general practice clinics. While diabetes incidence was not a primary outcome, both studies demonstrated significant improvements in key metabolic indicators, including reductions in body weight, blood pressure, and lipid levels, thereby confirming the feasibility of implementing structured interventions in routine clinical practice [40].

In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP), implemented from 2016 to 2018, represents a prominent example of a nationally scaled lifestyle intervention. To improve accessibility, the program integrated digital platforms alongside in-person group sessions, allowing individuals to participate remotely when needed. The educational content was standardized and grounded in behavior change theory, incorporating strategies such as goal setting, self-monitoring, and food logging to ensure consistency and effectiveness. Furthermore, the intervention was delivered by third-party providers rather than clinical staff, enabling scalable and cost-efficient delivery. Supported by comprehensive government policy, the NHS DPP has been institutionalized as a nationally standardized service model for diabetes prevention [41,42].

These findings support the importance of developing sustainable diabetes prevention strategies and further emphasize the critical need to design and implement culturally appropriate, cost-effective, and practically feasible programs tailored to each country’s unique cultural and healthcare context.

KOREAN DIABETES PREVENTION STUDY

Program overview

The Korean Diabetes Prevention Study (KDPS; NCT02981121) is a nationwide clinical trial designed to develop and evaluate diabetes prevention strategies tailored to the Korean healthcare setting. Initiated in 2016, the study compares the preventive effects of MET, LSM, and standard management (STM). Between November 2016 and April 2022, 1,611 individuals were screened across 15 university hospitals, and 810 overweight or obese adults aged 30 to 70 years with prediabetes were randomized to three groups (STM, n=270; LSM, n=272; MET, n=268). KDPS is the second largest diabetes prevention trial worldwide and the largest in Asia, with interventions and follow-up still ongoing as of 2025. The LSM intervention was based on the hypothesis that achieving and maintaining a reduction of more than 5% in body weight through structured LSM could effectively prevent diabetes in high-risk individuals.

Background of the lifestyle modification program

Previous landmark trials such as the DPP and DPS have demonstrated that structured LSM can effectively prevent the development of T2DM. However, these studies also revealed several limitations, including the complexity of implementation, the delivery of excessive amounts of information during individual sessions, and participants’ tendency to forget the material within a short period [37,43,44]. In addition, participants often struggled to apply the acquired knowledge to daily life and to sustain behavioral changes over time. Because a wide range of topics was covered each week, the interventions frequently lacked sufficient repetition, and components such as exercise, dietary behavior, and LSM were difficult to maintain voluntarily once the study ended [34,35,44]. Accordingly, it has been emphasized that lifestyle education should extend beyond short-term weight loss and instead promote long-term weight maintenance and the establishment of sustainable healthy habits [33-37,45].

To address these challenges, the Lifestyle Modification Task Force Team of the Korean Diabetes Association—comprising nutritionists, behavioral psychologists, exercise physiologists, and physicians—developed a structured LSM program tailored to the Korean population. The KDPS lifestyle intervention was designed as a multidisciplinary program integrating medical nutrition therapy, exercise therapy, and behavioral counseling, while incorporating cultural and social factors to improve feasibility and adherence. To ensure both practicality and effectiveness in real-world clinical settings, the program adjusted the number and intensity of in-person visits to realistic levels and provided personalized, stage-matched education and counseling. In addition, standardized educational materials and protocols were developed in accordance with national clinical guidelines, thereby ensuring consistent delivery and applicability across diverse healthcare environments.

Clinical applicability

Considering that a high-intensity and high-cost structure, as applied in overseas programs, would pose limitations not only for study implementation but also for practical application and sustainability in real clinical practice, the KDPS was designed as a pragmatic, moderate-intensity intervention that maintains effectiveness while reducing the cost burden. By adopting a structure that balances feasibility with efficacy, the program enhances accessibility and adherence among participants and allows for practical implementation across diverse healthcare institutions and community settings.

Rather than relying solely on conventional information delivery, the program utilizes simple, campaign style messages that aim to change habits and attitudes by raising participants’ awareness of healthy eating and lifestyle practices and enhancing their motivation for behavioral change. To operationalize this, the ‘10 habits’ program was developed as a set of 10 simple, action-oriented messages focused on daily practice (Fig. 1). Designed to be easy to remember and apply in everyday life, these messages cover one item related to exercise therapy, five related to dietary therapy, and four related to behavioral therapy, providing a comprehensive approach to improving dietary and lifestyle habits. Importantly, the messages are delivered in a stepwise manner according to each participant’s stage of behavior change following the transtheoretical model (TTM) of behavior change, which includes the pre-contemplation and contemplation stage, preparation stage, and action and maintenance stage. For each of these stages, educational materials were developed and counseling is provided accordingly to help participants gradually form and maintain healthy habits over the long term. In previous studies, this repetitive and practice-oriented ‘10 habits’ approach has been shown to have a significant effect on improving participants’ dietary behaviors and lifestyle practices when delivered as stage-matched nutrition education [46,47].

In addition, to ensure the program’s effectiveness and sustainability in various clinical settings, a comprehensive training curriculum was established for educators, including nurses and dietitians. Since, for the LSM group, variations in outcomes such as weight change are inevitably influenced by the competency of intervention educators, including clinical dietitians and health coordinators, it is essential to provide standardized training to maintain a consistently high level of educator proficiency. This training program offers both in-person and remote workshops, enabling facilitators to consistently deliver the KDPS-LSM intervention and adapt its components to the needs of different populations and healthcare environments. In addition, a practical manual was developed for educators so that the program can be easily used in hospitals, community health centers, and other local settings. By adjusting the LSM program to fit the specific conditions of each institution, it is expected that an adaptable version can be widely distributed and utilized in primary and secondary medical institutions, workplaces, and regional public health centers.

International differentiation

In the case of the DPP, the intervention included 16 in-person education sessions over the initial 24 weeks (approximately two to three times per month), followed by at least 1 monthly visit for the next 6 months, and continued with monthly visits for up to 3 years. This resulted in a total of 26 in-person visits during the first year. However, considering the social and healthcare environment in South Korea, it was determined that directly applying the same number of visits used in other countries would pose challenges not only for research implementation but also for practical application and sustainability in real clinical practice. Therefore, the program was designed by fully taking into account Korea’s healthcare system and its practical feasibility, with an initial plan of seven in-person education sessions over the first 24 weeks, followed by visits every 3 months during the subsequent 6 months, resulting in a total of nine visits in the first year. This approach was designed to ensure that the program could be realistically implemented in domestic institutions, and its higher cost-effectiveness increases its acceptability within national health insurance schemes and public health policies.

In addition, the LSM program was developed to ensure cultural relevance and appropriateness for the Korean context. In particular, the in-person education materials for intensive lifestyle intervention were designed with careful consideration of Koreans’ unique food culture, general eating habits, drinking practices, and sleep patterns. This culturally tailored design, which reflects the dietary and lifestyle characteristics of Korean adults, helps increase participant acceptance and contributes to achieving more effective intervention outcomes.

Furthermore, to accommodate various situations such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a non-face-to-face education platform model was developed and piloted, and practical exercise intervention videos were also produced and used to help participants consistently maintain healthy lifestyle behaviors. Through these efforts, the program has been designed so that a flexible and customized prevention and management system can be established and effectively adapted and implemented in diverse real-world settings. Building on this foundation, the KDPS-LSM program could be further utilized to develop evidence-based non-face-to-face education programs, ensuring that effective remote prevention interventions can be delivered as they will inevitably be needed in the future.

Key elements of the lifestyle modification program

Table 4 shows the intervention schedule for the KDPS-LSM group, which aims for participants to achieve at least 5% weight loss within the initial 6 months. They visit the hospital to receive four intensive nutrition education sessions from clinical dietitians and also participate in seven healthy lifestyle education sessions and eight telephone counseling sessions with health coordinators [48]. After the first 6 months, participants visit the hospital every 3 months to review the 10 healthy lifestyle habits with health coordinators and receive monthly health messages to support diabetes prevention and management [49]. Additionally, participants complete a dietary record once a year to regularly monitor their eating habits [49].

After the first year, participants continued to receive follow-up visits every 3 months, with the LSM period lasting for a minimum of 36 months and up to 72 months, resulting in a total of 30 visits.

Efficacy of the KDPS lifestyle modification program: interim results (unpublished)

As the KDPS trial is still in progress, definitive conclusions regarding its long-term efficacy in diabetes prevention cannot yet be drawn. Nevertheless, interim analyses provide meaningful preliminary evidence. In the 6-month analysis (manuscript under review), participants in the LSM group achieved significantly greater weight reduction, a higher proportion reached the ≥5% weight loss goal, and improvements in metabolic parameters were observed compared with the STM (control) group. Moreover, unpublished analyses conducted after more than 2 years of intervention suggest that the LSM group experienced an approximately 30% lower incidence of diabetes relative to the STM group. These interim findings indicate the potential of the KDPS-LSM program to contribute to diabetes prevention in real-world clinical settings, pending confirmation by final outcome analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This study comprehensively reviewed the effectiveness, clinical applicability, and cost-effectiveness of domestic and international LSM programs for T2DM prevention. Numerous large-scale studies have shown that structured and intensive LSM can reduce T2DM incidence by approximately 30% to 60% among high-risk groups; however, programs designed with high-intensity and high-cost structures, as seen in many international cases, require significant time and resources, making them difficult to sustain in real practice. In response, this study proposes a practical, moderate-intensity, and cost-effective structure that maintains effectiveness while considering the realities of the Korean healthcare system and sociocultural context. Rather than relying on conventional information delivery alone, the program was designed to help participants form and maintain healthy habits through repetitive, practice-oriented campaign style messages delivered according to the TTM. To ensure stable implementation in various clinical and community settings, a standardized training curriculum for educators and a detailed manual were also developed. Additionally, to enhance accessibility and adaptability during situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic, remote delivery platforms and online materials were prepared.

In summary, the LSM program that fully reflects the characteristics and needs of the target population and includes a feasible delivery system and educator support can achieve both practical feasibility and cost-effectiveness. This approach can improve participant satisfaction and encourage sustained behavior change, leading to meaningful T2DM prevention outcomes. Furthermore, for such evidence-based standardized programs to be stably disseminated across healthcare institutions and communities, systematic educator training and financial support must be provided. By doing so, practical and affordable LSM can become part of daily life, making a substantial contribution to T2DM prevention and the reduction of the national healthcare burden.

NOTES

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

FUNDING

This research was supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) research project (project No. 2020-ER6402-00, -01, -02, 2023-ER1103-00, -01, -02).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None

Fig. 1.

10 keys to a healthier lifestyle (Sib-si-il-gang).

REFERENCES

• 1. Hossain MJ, Al-Mamun M, Islam MR. Diabetes mellitus, the fastest growing global public health concern: early detection should be focused. Health Sci Rep 2024;7:e2004.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 2. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. Brussels: IDF; 2025.
• 3. Joseph JJ, Deedwania P, Acharya T, Aguilar D, Bhatt DL, Chyun DA, et al. Comprehensive management of cardiovascular risk factors for adults with type 2 diabetes: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2022;145:e722-59.ArticlePubMed
• 4. Gruss SM, Nhim K, Gregg E, Bell M, Luman E, Albright A, et al. Public health approaches to type 2 diabetes prevention: the US National Diabetes Prevention Program and Beyond. Curr Diab Rep 2019;19:78.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 5. An X, Zhang Y, Sun W, Kang X, Ji H, Sun Y, et al. Early effective intervention can significantly reduce all-cause mortality in prediabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on high-quality clinical studies. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2024;15:1294819.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 6. Galaviz KI, Weber MB, Straus A, Haw JS, Narayan KMV, Ali MK, et al. Global diabetes prevention interventions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the real-world impact on incidence, weight, and glucose. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1526-34.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 7. Saha S, Gerdtham UG, Johansson P. Economic evaluation of lifestyle interventions for preventing diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010;7:3150-95.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 8. Jacobs-van der Bruggen MA, van Baal PH, Hoogenveen RT, Feenstra TL, Briggs AH, Lawson K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lifestyle modification in diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1453-8.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 9. Lu X, Xie Q, Pan X, Zhang R, Zhang X, Peng G, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: pathogenesis, prevention and therapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2024;9:262.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 10. Singh S, Kriti M, Anamika KS, Sarma DK, Verma V, Nagpal R, et al. Deciphering the complex interplay of risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a comprehensive review. Metabol Open 2024;22:100287.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 11. Galicia-Garcia U, Benito-Vicente A, Jebari S, Larrea-Sebal A, Siddiqi H, Uribe KB, et al. Pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:6275.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 12. Ali O. Genetics of type 2 diabetes. World J Diabetes 2013;4:114-23.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 13. Tillil H, Kobberling J. Age-corrected empirical genetic risk estimates for first-degree relatives of IDDM patients. Diabetes 1987;36:93-9.ArticlePubMed
• 14. Good to know: race and type 2 diabetes. Clin Diabetes 2020;38:403-4.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 15. Pham TM, Carpenter JR, Morris TP, Sharma M, Petersen I. Ethnic differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the UK: cross-sectional analysis of the health improvement network primary care database. Clin Epidemiol 2019;11:1081-8.PubMedPMC
• 16. Golden SH, Yajnik C, Phatak S, Hanson RL, Knowler WC. Racial/ethnic differences in the burden of type 2 diabetes over the life course: a focus on the USA and India. Diabetologia 2019;62:1751-60.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 17. Rahelic V, Perkovic T, Romic L, Perkovic P, Klobucar S, Pavic E, et al. The role of behavioral factors on chronic diseases-practice and knowledge gaps. Healthcare (Basel) 2024;12:2520.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 18. 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;15:78.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 19. Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, Chin MH, Gary-Webb TL, Navas-Acien A, et al. Social determinants of health and diabetes: a scientific review. Diabetes Care 2020;44:258-79.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 20. Hu FB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz G, Liu S, Solomon CG, et al. Diet, lifestyle, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. N Engl J Med 2001;345:790-7.ArticlePubMed
• 21. Ma E, Fukasawa M, Ohira T, Yasumura S, Suzuki T, Furuyama A, et al. Lifestyle behaviour patterns in the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Fukushima Health Database 2015-2020. Public Health 2023;224:98-105.ArticlePubMed
• 22. Hsueh WA, Orloski L, Wyne K. Prediabetes: the importance of early identification and intervention. Postgrad Med 2010;122:129-43.Article
• 23. Pratley RE. The early treatment of type 2 diabetes. Am J Med 2013;126(9 Suppl 1):S2-9.ArticlePubMed
• 24. Park SE, Ko SH, Kim JY, Kim K, Moon JH, Kim NH, et al. Diabetes fact sheets in Korea 2024. Diabetes Metab J 2025;49:524.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 25. Oldroyd JC, Unwin NC, White M, Mathers JC, Alberti KG. Randomised controlled trial evaluating lifestyle interventions in people with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2006;72:117-27.ArticlePubMed
• 26. Bo S, Ciccone G, Baldi C, Benini L, Dusio F, Forastiere G, et al. Effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention on metabolic syndrome. A randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1695-703.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 27. Roumen C, Corpeleijn E, Feskens EJ, Mensink M, Saris WH, Blaak EE, et al. Impact of 3-year lifestyle intervention on postprandial glucose metabolism: the SLIM study. Diabet Med 2008;25:597-605.ArticlePubMed
• 28. Oh EG, Bang SY, Hyun SS, Kim SH, Chu SH, Jeon JY, et al. Effects of a 6-month lifestyle modification intervention on the cardiometabolic risk factors and health-related qualities of life in women with metabolic syndrome. Metabolism 2010;59:1035-43.ArticlePubMed
• 29. Nanri A, Tomita K, Matsushita Y, Ichikawa F, Yamamoto M, Nagafuchi Y, et al. Effect of six months lifestyle intervention in Japanese men with metabolic syndrome: randomized controlled trial. J Occup Health 2012;54:215-22.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 30. Maruyama C, Kimura M, Okumura H, Hayashi K, Arao T. Effect of a worksite-based intervention program on metabolic parameters in middle-aged male white-collar workers: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med 2010;51:11-7.ArticlePubMed
• 31. Lu YH, Lu JM, Wang SY, Li CL, Zheng RP, Tian H, et al. Outcome of intensive integrated intervention in participants with impaired glucose regulation in China. Adv Ther 2011;28:511-9.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 32. Ma J, Wan X, Wu B. The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions for preventing diabetes in a health resource-limited setting. J Diabetes Res 2020;2020:7410797.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 33. Pan XR, Li GW, Hu YH, Wang JX, Yang WY, An ZX, et al. Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance. The Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care 1997;20:537-44.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 34. Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1343-50.ArticlePubMed
• 35. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393-403.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 36. Sakane N, Sato J, Tsushita K, Tsujii S, Kotani K, Tsuzaki K, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes in a primary healthcare setting: three-year results of lifestyle intervention in Japanese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. BMC Public Health 2011;11:40.PubMedPMC
• 37. Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Mary S, Mukesh B, Bhaskar AD, Vijay V, et al. The Indian Diabetes Prevention Programme shows that lifestyle modification and metformin prevent type 2 diabetes in Asian Indian subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IDPP-1). Diabetologia 2006;49:289-97.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 38. Davis-Lameloise N, Hernan A, Janus ED, Stewart E, Carter R, Bennett CM, et al. The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013;14:31.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 39. Laatikainen T, Dunbar JA, Chapman A, Kilkkinen A, Vartiainen E, Heistaro S, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention in an Australian primary health care setting: Greater Green Triangle (GGT) Diabetes Prevention Project. BMC Public Health 2007;7:249.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 40. Dunbar JA. Diabetes prevention in Australia: 10 years results and experience. Diabetes Metab J 2017;41:160-7.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 41. Bower P, Soiland-Reyes C, Bennett C, Brunton L, Burch P, Cameron E, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP): the DIPLOMA long-term multimethod assessment. Health Soc Care Deliv Res 2025;13:1-47.ArticlePDF
• 42. Valabhji J, Barron E, Bradley D, Bakhai C, Fagg J, O’Neill S, et al. Early outcomes from the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme. Diabetes Care 2020;43:152-60.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 43. Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol 2009;28:690-701.ArticlePubMed
• 44. Greaves CJ, Sheppard KE, Abraham C, Hardeman W, Roden M, Evans PH, et al. Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness in dietary and physical activity interventions. BMC Public Health 2011;11:119.PubMedPMC
• 45. Wing RR, Phelan S. Long-term weight loss maintenance. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82(1 Suppl):222S-5S.ArticlePubMed
• 46. Kim BH, Lim H. Effects of customized nutritional education ‘change 10 habits’ program according to stage of behavior change in mildly obese adults. J Korean Diet Assoc 2015;21:215-26.Article
• 47. Kim BH, Kang M, Kim DY, Son K, Lim H. High compliance with the lifestyle-modification program “change 10 habits” is effective for obesity management. J Obes Metab Syndr 2024;33:155-65.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 48. Rhee SY, Chon S, Ahn KJ, Woo JT. Hospital-based Korean Diabetes Prevention Study: a prospective, multi-center, randomized, open-label controlled study. Diabetes Metab J 2019;43:49-58.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 49. Choi JH, Lee JH, Chon S. Medical nutrition therapy as a hospital-based lifestyle modification in the Korean Diabetes Prevention Study. J Korean Diabetes 2025;26:39-47.ArticlePDF

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• The Triangular Interaction Between Dietary Polyphenols, Gut Microbiota and Type 2 Diabetes
  Emily Bayliss, Landri Shope, Seth Woodfin, Gretchka Mair, Matthew H. Becker, William Moore
  International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2026; 27(11): 4782.     CrossRef

About this article

Lee I, Kang M, Choi JH, Lim H, Chon S. Clinically Practical and Affordable Lifestyle Modification to Prevent Diabetes Mellitus in Real Practice. Diabetes Metab J. 2025;49(5):951-963.

Received: Jul 27, 2025; Accepted: Aug 28, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2025.0675.

Download citation ↓