Attention A T users. To access the menus on this page please perform the following steps. 1. Please switch auto forms mode to off. 2. Hit enter to expand a main menu option (Health, Benefits, etc). 3. To enter and activate the submenu links, hit the down arrow. You will now be able to tab or arrow up or down through the submenu options to access/activate the submenu links.

Durham Center of Innovation to ADAPT

Quick Links
Veterans Crisis Line Badge
My healthevet badge

Research Briefs

ADAPT Papers of the Year

2021 - Maren Olsen, PhD

Which patients benefit most from completing health risk assessments: comparing methods to identify heterogeneity of treatment effects?

Dr. Olsen and colleagues developed a novel predictive risk modeling (PRM) approach and used data from a behavioral intervention trial (ACTIVATE) to compare subgroup effects with those identified by model-based recursive partitioning (MoB). This work provides key context for other investigators who are interested in implementing HTE in analysis of behavioral interventions.

2020 - Will Yancy, MD

Comparison of Group Medical Visits Combined With Intensive Weight Management vs. Group Medical Visits Alone for Glycemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial

Dr. Yancy and colleagues used a non-inferiority design to compare outcomes between an intensive weight management program and a diabetes medication management program. This work is the first published study to suggest that a diet intervention is equally effective as medication intensification for glycemic control, with the added benefits of weight loss, fewer hypoglycemic events, and decreased medication use. 

2019 - George Jackson, PhD

Intermediate Diabetes Outcomes in Patients Managed by Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, or Physician Assistants: A Cohort Study

Dr. Jackson and colleagues used diabetes as a model to investigate whether patients with NPs or PAs as their PCPs had chronic illness outcomes different from patients seen by physicians. There were no clinically significant differences in intermediate diabetes outcomes or the control of those outcomes among patients with NP, PA, or physician PCPs. This study provides further evidence that using NPs and PAs as PCPs may represent a mechanism for expanding access to primary care while maintaining quality standards.