Community-Based Physical Activity Interventions for Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests engaging in regular physical activity (PA) can have beneficial outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes (TD2), including weight loss, reduction of medication usage and improvements in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)/fasting glucose. While a number of clinical-based PA interventions exist, community-based approaches are limited. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of community-based PA interventions for the treatment of TD2 in adult populations. A search of peer-reviewed publications from 2002 to June 2012 was conducted across several electronic databases to identify interventions evaluated in community settings. Twenty-two studies were identified, and 11 studies reporting HbA1c as an outcome measure were pooled in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias assessment was also conducted. The findings demonstrate community-based PA interventions can be effective in producing increases in PA. Meta-analysis revealed a lowering of HbA1c levels by -0.32% [95% CI -0.65, 0.01], which approached statistical significance (p < 0.06). Our findings can guide future PA community-based interventions in adult populations diagnosed with TD2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".