Patients’ Evaluations of Mobile Text Messaging Studies for Type 2 Diabetes Management: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Synthesis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cigdem Sahin ◽  
Karen L. Courtney ◽  
P. J. Naylor ◽  
Ryan E. Rhodes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Diabetes Management

scholarly journals Tailored mobile text messaging interventions targeting type 2 diabetes self-management: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 205520761984527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cigdem Sahin ◽  
Karen L Courtney ◽  
PJ Naylor ◽  
Ryan E Rhodes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Pool Data ◽  
Message Delivery

Objectives This study aimed to identify, assess and summarize available scientific evidence on tailored text messaging interventions focused on type 2 diabetes self-management. The systematic review concentrated on message design and delivery features, and tailoring strategies. The meta-analysis assessed the moderators of the effectiveness of tailored text messaging interventions. Methods A comprehensive search strategy included major electronic databases, key journal searches and reference list searching for related studies. PRISMA and Cochrane Collaboration's guidelines and recommended tools for data extraction, quality appraisal and data analysis were followed. Data were extracted on participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity), and interventional and methodological characteristics (study design, study setting, study length, choice of modality, comparison group, message type, format, content, use of interactivity, message frequency, message timing, message delivery, tailoring strategies and theory use). Outcome measures included diet, physical activity, medication adherence and glycated hemoglobin data (HbA1C). Where possible, a random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool data on the effectiveness of the tailored text messaging interventions and moderator variables. Results The search returned 13 eligible trials for the systematic review and 11 eligible trials for the meta-analysis. The majority of the studies were randomized controlled trials, conducted in high-income settings, used multi-modalities, and mostly delivered informative, educational messages through an automated message delivery system. Tailored text messaging interventions produced a substantial effect ( g = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.08–0.99, p < 0.001) on HbA1C values for a total of 949 patients. Subgroup analyses revealed the importance of some moderators such as message delivery ( QB = 18.72, df = 1, p = 0.001), message direction ( QB = 5.26, df = 1, p = 0.022), message frequency ( QB = 18.72, df = 1, p = 0.000) and using multi-modalities ( QB = 6.18, df = 1, p = 0.013). Conclusions Tailored mobile text messaging interventions can improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients. However, more rigorous interventions with larger samples and longer follow-ups are required to confirm these findings and explore the effects of tailored text messaging on other self-management outcomes.

The use of technology to promote physical activity in Type 2 diabetes management: a systematic review

2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (12) ◽  
pp. 1420-1432 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Connelly ◽  
A. Kirk ◽  
J. Masthoff ◽  
S. MacRury
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Use Of Technology

An evidence‐based approach to developing low‐carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes management: A systematic review of interventions and methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 2513-2525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Turton ◽  
Grant D. Brinkworth ◽  
Rowena Field ◽  
Helen Parker ◽  
Kieron Rooney
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Low Carbohydrate

scholarly journals Costs and Its Drivers for Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 Patients in France and Germany: A Systematic Review of Economic Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance Stegbauer ◽  
Camilla Falivena ◽  
Ariadna Moreno ◽  
Anna Hentschel ◽  
Magda Rosenmöller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Cost Drivers ◽  
Technology Advancement ◽  
Modelling Studies ◽  
Prior Literature

Abstract Background Type 2 diabetes represents an increasingly critical challenge for health policy worldwide. It absorbs massive resources for both patients and national economies to sustain direct and associated costs of treatment and indirect costs related to loss of work and wages. Last years are fuelling of innovations grounded on the remote control and personalised programs which are significantly improving the management of diabetes and the reduction of its related complications. In this view, this work attempts to update cost analysis reviews on type 2 diabetes, focusing on France and Germany, in order to explore most significant cost drivers and rooms for cost savings by technology advancement. Although characterized by different approaches in delivering care, France and Germany represent the primary European markets for diabetes technologies. Methods A systematic review of the literature was carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and EconLit for interventional, observational, and modelling studies on expenditures for type 2 diabetes management in France or Germany published since 2012. Included articles were analysed for annual direct, associated, and indirect costs of type 2 diabetes patients. An appraisal of study quality was performed. Results are summarised narratively. Results From 1.260 records, the final sample was composed of 24 papers selected according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Both France and Germany revealed a predominant focus on direct cost. Comparability was limited due to different study populations and cost categories used. Nevertheless, France seems to reimburse higher direct costs than Germany. Indirect costs were only available for Germany. According to prior literature, reported cost drivers are hospitalisation and prescriptions as well as higher HbA1c and BMI, treatment with insulin and complications all indicating the severity of the disease. Diversity in available data and in included costs limit the results and may explain differences found. Conclusions Preventing complications and glycaemic control are widely recognized as the most effective ways to govern the expenditure for the treatment of diabetes. The implementation of self-based supports, such as hybrid closed-loop metabolic, already implemented for type 1 diabetes management, are the key pillars for further debates and policymaking, involving the perspectives of both caregivers and patients.

scholarly journals Comparing effects of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs) and self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingyue Zheng ◽  
Yunting Luo ◽  
Wei Lin ◽  
Adeel Khoja ◽  
Qian He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glucose Control ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Glucose Levels

Abstract Background: Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have been used to manage diabetes with reasonable glucose control among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in recent decades. CGM systems measure interstitial fluid glucose levels to provide information about glucose levels, which identifies fluctuation that would not have been identified with conventional self-monitoring. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a classical tool to achieve glycaemic control. However, the effectiveness of glucose control, costs, and quality of life are needed to evaluate and compare CGM and SMBG among adults with T2D.Methods: The review will compare the various forms of CGM systems (i.e flash-CGM, real-time-CGM, retrospective-CGM) versus SMBG/usual intervention regarding diabetes management among adults with T2D. The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, Science Direct, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and grey literature for the identification of studies. The studies involving adults (aged ≥ 18 years old) will be included. We will include and summararize randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with respect to authors, publication type, year, status, and type of devices. Studies published in English between February 2010 and March 2020 will be included as the field of CGMs among T2D patients has emerged over the last decade. Primary outcomes that will be measured will be; HbA1c, body weight, time spent with hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia, blood pressure, quality of life. Secondary outcome measured will be morbidity, all-cause mortality, user satisfaction, and barriers. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently by at least two authors. A third author will determine and resolve discrepancies. Moreover, the quality of the evidence of the review will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Tool (GRADE).Discussion: The systematic review will synthesise evidence on the comparison between using CGMs and SMBG. The results will support researchers and health care professionals to determine the most effective methods/technologies in the overall diabetes management. Moreover, this review will provide more detailed information about the barriers of using CGMs to improve implementation.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020149212

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators of diabetes management by continuous glucose monitoring systems among adults with type 2 diabetes: a protocol of qualitative systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e046050
Author(s):  
Mingyue Zheng ◽  
Anamica Patel ◽  
Adeel Khoja ◽  
Yunting Luo ◽  
Wei Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Controlled Vocabulary ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Skin Reactions

IntroductionStudies suggest that continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) play an important role in the management of diabetes. Although general acceptance has been reported by patients with type 2 diabetes towards the use of CGMs, potential barriers exist like pain due to sensor insertion, accidental removal of the device or adhesive strip, impacts of daily activities, skin reactions to sensor adhesive, etc. This systematic review of qualitative studies aims to explore the perspectives, experiences and narratives of patients and caregivers about CGM use, and its barriers and facilitators.Methods and analysisThis review will include qualitative studies and cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort studies using open-ended questions, published in English by 30 October 2021. The following electronic databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus. A search of grey literature will be conducted via an online search of Google Scholar, WorldCat, ClinicalTrials.gov and OpenGrey A combined search strategy using medical subject headings (MeSH), controlled vocabulary and ‘free-text’ terms will be appropriately revised to suit each database. Primary outcomes will include patient and caregiver perspectives on diabetes management regarding glucose control; living with CGM (quality of life, experience of wearing a CGM); psychological aspects (anxiety, depression, emotional burden); barriers (technical issues, financial issues) to use of CGM and thoughts (interpretation, understanding) on the CGM report. A qualitative meta-synthesis will be conducted employing a systematic literature search of existing literature, quality assessment using study-specific tools and an aggregative thematic synthesis by a multidisciplinary team.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since this is a systematic review. The results will help improve clinical implementation of CGMs on part of both patients and caregivers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020152211.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document