Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
INTRODUCTION: The lack of effective, scalable solutions for lifestyle treatment is a global clinical problem, causing severe morbidity and mortality. Digital tools could enable broad utility, but long-term metabolic outcomes and the influence on quality of life are unclear. METHODS: We developed a new method for lifestyle treatment that promotes self-reflection and iterative behavioural change, provided as a digital tool, and evaluated its effect on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes with HbA1c below 52 mmol/mol (n = 297). As a secondary analysis, its effect on quality of life (using SF-12) was examined in both participants with and without diabetes (total n = 1914). The tool was evaluated during a 12-week randomization period to assess the existence of effect, with a subsequent open-label follow-up to study long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Participants were randomized to wait or access the intervention tool. The mean difference in HbA1c was 2 mmol/mol (95% CI - 4 to 0; P = 0.02) after 12 weeks in participants with type 2 diabetes. The groups were then merged to enable all participants to use the tool. The mean HbA1c reduction from baseline in patients with type 2 diabetes using the tool was 2 mmol/mol compared with matched controls (95% CI - 3 to 0; P = 0.005). In users with HbA1c above 45 mmol/mol, the mean difference between the groups was 4 mmol/mol (95% CI - 7 to - 2). The improvements were sustained during the follow-up of 1 year on average. Users of the tool also had improved quality of life from baseline to 6 months, mainly observed in non-diabetic participants. CONCLUSION: The tool does not require in-person reinforcement or increased healthcare resources, and the marginal cost is fundamentally lower than pharmacological treatment and most existing lifestyle interventions. The results therefore open a new means for self-managed lifestyle treatment with long-term metabolic efficacy that can benefit large numbers of people. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04624321 and NCT05006508.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dwibedi et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: