Table 2.

Most frequently reported primary outcome measures in included RCTs^a.

Study		Reported effect and results
Outcome measure: HbA 1c b (diabetes programs)
	Baron et al [94]	Neutral: Program did not achieve a clinically significant reduction in HbA1c.
	Blackberry et al [96]	Neutral: At 18-months follow-up, the effect on HbA1c did not differ between the intervention and control (mean difference 0.2, 95%CI −0.2 to 0.2; P=.84).
	Buysse et al [97]	Positive: Both groups received tele-education at different time points (delayed access [control] and immediate access [study group]) and demonstrated an overall significant impact of tele-education on HbA1c reduction (−0.5% control and −0.4% study group, respectively).
	Carter et al [98]	Positive: Patients enrolled in intervention were 4.58 times more likely to achieve an HbA1c target <7%.
	Charpentier et al [99]	Positive: At 6 months, mean HbA1c was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (8.41 vs 9.10, respectively).
	Davis et al [102]	Positive: A significant reduction in HbA1c was found in the intervention group, compared with usual care (9.4 to 8.2 in the intervention group, compared with 8.8 to 8.6 in usual care).
	Fountoulakis et al [107]	Positive: Significant reduction in HbA1c in the intervention group at 3 and 6 months, when compared with that in the control group.
	Greenwood et al [108]	Positive: The intervention group had a statistically significant difference of 0.41 percentage points at 6 months when compared with the control group.
	Klingeman et al [117]	Positive: Average HbA1c reduced by 1.7% in the intervention group, compared with 0.3% in the control group.
	Sood et al [124]	Neutral: No statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups at 18 months.
	Varney et al [127]	Positive: The intervention group experienced a greater mean change in adjusted HbA1c than the controls between baseline and 12 months; however, this was not sustained.
	Wakefield et al [129]	Neutral: Participants in the intervention group experienced decreased HbA1c during the 6-month intervention period when compared with the control group; however, 6 months after the intervention was withdrawn, the intervention groups were comparable with the control group.
	Weinstock et al [113]	Positive: Intervention was associated with improved HbA1c over 5 years, when compared with control.
	Wild et al [110]	Positive: Clinically and statistically significant improvements were observed in the intervention group at 9 months, when compared with the control group.
Outcome measure: rate of hospitalization (COPDc programs)
	Antoniades et al [75]	Neutral: No significant difference between the intervention and control groups at 12 months.
	Blumenthal et al [78]	Neutral: No significant difference between the intervention and control groups up to 4.4 years follow-up
	Fairbrother et al [84]	Neutral: No significant difference between the intervention and control groups at 12 months.
	Pinnock et al [85]	Neutral: No significant difference between the intervention and control groups at 12 months.
	Kessler et al [86]	Neutral: No significant difference between the intervention and control groups at 12 months.
	Tabak et al [89]	Neutral: No significant difference between the intervention and control groups at 2 months.
Outcome measure: PAd or capacity (cardiovascular disease programs)
	Lear et al [47]	Positive: Intervention group participants who received support from a health professional through an internet-based platform had a greater increase in maximal time on the treadmill by 45.7 seconds (95% CI 1.04-90.48) compared with the usual care group over the 16 months (P=.045).
	Furber et al [50]	Positive: After the 6-week intervention, improvements in total PA time, total PA sessions, walking time, and walking sessions were all significantly greater in the intervention group who received telephone support than in the control who received 2 education pamphlets and no support via telephone.
	Hawkes et al [59]	Neutral: No significant difference between the PA of participants in the intervention and control groups at 6 months follow-up.
	Hwang et al [52,53]	Neutral: No difference was found between the PA of participants receiving the telerehabilitation intervention when compared with the control group who received center-based care, and it was less costly than center-based heart failure rehabilitation.
	Nolan et al [57]	Positive: More telehealth participants than control participants reported adherence to exercise and diet after treatment at a 6-month follow-up.
Outcome measure: weight loss or prevention of weight gained (risk factors for chronic disease programs)
	Ferrara et al [135]	Positive: Compared with those receiving usual care, women in the lifestyle intervention had reduced weekly rate of gestational weight gain (mean 0.26 vs 0.32 kg/week).
	Padwal et al [138]	Neutral: Face to-face or web-based delivery of intensive self-management program was no more effective than the once off provision of educational materials and were more costly.
	Weinstock et al [141]	Positive: Mean percent weight loss at 2-year follow-up was higher for the conference call group than for the individual call group (−5.6% compared with −1.8%).

^aRCT: randomized controlled trial.

^bHbA_1c: glycated hemoglobin A_1c.

^cCOPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

^dPA: physical activity.