Table 3.
Data extraction from type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) studies.
| First author, date, reference | Study design and duration; objectives | Study population | Intervention and comparator | Outcomes | Main results |
| Arens, 2018 [26] | Non-RCTa for 12 months; effectiveness of app-based weight reduction program for people with metabolic syndrome | German adults aged 30-65 years treated for metabolic syndrome in 23 medical practices; intervention n=148, usual care n=85 | Health goals regarding weight and PAb; app for feedback; physicians with access to app data could give feedback, initiate messages, or modify goals; ≤9 free classes on diet and PA; control: usual care | 5% weight reduction; change in BMI | 5% weight reduction (adjusted for time in study) (95% CI): 44.8% (34.1 to 57.1) in intervention vs 11.5% (4.6 to 27.0) in control; Cox proportional hazard model for time to 5% weight reduction hazard ratio 6.2 (2.4 to 16.2; P<.001), baseline adjusted between groups change in weight (kg) P=.06 and BMI (kg/m2) P=.10 |
| Bender, 2018 [27] | RCT for 3 months plus 3 months follow-up (no control for follow-up); effectiveness of mobile phone-based weight loss intervention to reduce T2DM risk | Filipino-American overweight or obese adults from United States at increased risk for T2DM, able to walk 20 min; intervention n=33, control n=34 | 5 in-person sessions, daily step count via wearable device, daily food intake and weekly weight logged in app, weekly information on weight loss, PA, and diet via private Facebook page; control: waitlist | Recruitment (goal n=50), retention, 5% weight loss, changes in weight, BMI, WCc, FBGd, HbA1ce | Weight loss ≥5%: intervention 36% vs control 6%; between-group cross-level interaction (95% CI): weight −1.1%/month (−1.7 to −0.53) and −0.85 kg/month (−1.4 to −0.35), BMI −0.93 kg/m2 (−1.5 to −0.40), WC −4.9 cm (−7.5 to −2.6), FBG −1.4 mg/dL (−5.9 to 3.6), HbA1c −0.10% (−0.21 to 0.002) |
| Block, 2015 [28] | RCT for 6 months plus 6 months follow-up (no control for follow-up); effectiveness of digital health intervention for T2DM risk reduction in prediabetics | Prediabetics aged 30-69 years from United States with BMI ≥27 kg/m2, without diabetes medication; intervention n=163, control n=176 | Tailored behavioral support for PA, diet, weight loss, stress, sleep; weekly emails with goals linked to website (tracking tools, coaching, social support, competition, health advice), app and automated phone calls; control: waitlist | Decreased HbA1c, FBG, weight, BMI, WC, triglyceride to HDLf ratio, metabolic syndrome, Framingham diabetes risk score | Mean (95% CI) HbA1c −0.26% (−0.27 to −0.24) in intervention vs control −0.18% (−0.19 to −0.16), FBG −0.41 mmol/L (−0.44 to, −0.12) in intervention vs −0.21 mmol/L (−0.15 to −0.10) in control, all outcomes significantly greater in intervention than control (P<.001) |
| Fischer, 2016 [29] | RCT for 12 months; effectiveness of text message–supported T2DM prevention program | Obese and overweight adults from United States without prediabetes, English or Spanish speaking; intervention n=82, control n=81 | 6 text messages per week: skills, problem solving, motivation, stress reduction, recipes, web links to additional resources, PA promotion; weekly self-reported weight; eligible for individual motivational phone health coaching; control: usual care | Change in weight; percentage of participants with ≥3% or 5% weight loss, changes in HbA1c and systolic BPg, costs per participant | Weight (95% CI) in intervention −1.2 kg (−2.5 to 0.1) vs control −0.3 kg (−1.2 to 0.7), P=.05; 3% weight loss absolute difference between groups 17.0%, P=.02; no significant difference for 5% weight loss; HbA1c in intervention −0.09% (−0.2 to 0.0) vs control 0.19% (−0.1 to 0.5), systolic BP in intervention 0.35 mmHg (−2.8 to 3.5) vs control 6.4 mmHg (3.2 to 9.5) |
| Fukuoka, 2015 [30] | RCT for 5 months; effectiveness of mobile app-based intervention for T2DM prevention | Overweight adults aged ≥35 years from United States at high risk of diabetes; intervention n=30; control n=31 | 2-week run-in period before randomizing; all daily step count via pedometer; intervention: mobile version of Diabetes Prevention Program, 6 in-person sessions, app: diaries for self-monitoring of weight, PA, and caloric intake, daily reminders and messages; control: pedometer only | % change in weight and BMI; hip circumference, BP, lipid profile, glucose levels, step count, PA, caloric and fat intake | Weight (95% CI) −6.8% (−12.2 to −1.4) in intervention vs 0.3% (−2.7 to 3.3) in control; BMI −6.6% (−12.3 to −0.9) in intervention vs 0.3% (−2.7 to 3.3) in control; both P<.001; also significant differences in hip circumference, BP, step count, and PA for intervention vs control; no effect on lipid profile, glucose levels, caloric or fat intake |
| Ramachandran, 2013 [31] | RCT for 2 years; effectiveness of SMS text messaging to reduce incidence of T2DM in men with impaired glucose tolerance | Indian men aged 35-55 years with impaired glucose tolerance; intervention n=271, control n=266 | All at baseline: healthy lifestyle education and written information on diet and PA, lifestyle changes prescribed; intervention: frequent reinforcing text messages, content tailored to baseline behavior; control: usual care | Incidence of T2DM; BMI, WC, BP, lipid profile, energy intake, PA | Cumulative T2DM incidence: intervention 18%, control 27%; differences in mean change (95% CI): BMI −0.05 kg/m2 (−0.46 to 0.37); WC 0.04 cm (−0.56 to 0.64); systolic BP 0.04 mmHg (−0.96 to 1.03); diastolic BP −0.07 mmHg (−0.64 to 0.49); total cholesterol 0.01 mmol/L (−0.08 to 0.10); HDL 0.033 mmol/L (0.011 to 0.054); triglycerides −0.08 mmol/L (−0.17 to −0.06); energy intake –43.7 kcal (−65.5 to −22.0); PA score −1.0 (−2.0 to 0.0) |
aRCT: randomized controlled trial.
bPA: physical activity.
cWC: waist circumference.
dFBG: fasting blood glucose.
eHbA1c: glycated hemoglobin.
fHDL: high-density lipoprotein.
gBP: blood pressure.