Self-Monitoring Using Continuous Glucose Monitors with Real-Time Feedback Improves Exercise Adherence in Individuals with Impaired Blood Glucose: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise helps individuals with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes (T2D) manage their blood glucose (BG); however, exercise adherence in this population is dismal. In this pilot study we tested the efficacy of a self-monitoring group-based intervention using continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) at increasing exercise adherence in individuals with impaired BG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen participants with prediabetes or T2D were randomized to an 8-week standard care exercise program (CON condition) (n = 7) or self-monitoring exercise intervention (SM condition) (n = 6). Participants in the SM condition were taught how to self-monitor their exercise and BG, to goal set, and to use CGM to observe how exercise influences BG. We hypothesized that compared with the CON condition, using a real-time CGM would facilitate self-monitoring behavior, resulting in increased exercise adherence. RESULTS: Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed significant Condition × Time interactions for self-monitoring (P < 0.01), goal setting (P = 0.01), and self-efficacy to self-monitor (P = 0.01), such that the SM condition showed greater increases in these outcomes immediately after the program and at the 1-month follow-up compared with the CON condition. The SM condition had higher program attendance rates (P = 0.03), and a greater proportion of participants reregistered for additional exercise programs (P = 0.048) compared with the CON condition. Participants in both conditions experienced improvements in health-related quality of life, waist circumference, and fitness (P values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide promising initial support for the use of a real-time CGM to foster self-monitoring and exercise behavior in individuals living with prediabetes or T2D.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".