Evaluation of a Behavioral Mobile Phone App Intervention for the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) struggle with the management of their condition due to difficulty relating lifestyle behaviors with glycemic control. While self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has proven to be effective for those treated with insulin, it has been shown to be less beneficial for those only treated with oral medications or lifestyle modification. We hypothesized that the effective self-management of non-insulin treated T2DM requires a behavioral intervention that empowers patients with the ability to self-monitor, understand the impact of lifestyle behaviors on glycemic control, and adjust their self-care based on contextualized SMBG data. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to determine the impact of bant2, an evidence-based, patient-centered, behavioral mobile app intervention, on the self-management of T2DM. Our second postulation is that automated feedback delivered through the mobile app will be as effective, less resource intensive, and more scalable than interventions involving additional health care provider feedback. METHODS: This study is a 12-month, prospective, multicenter RCT in which 150 participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: the control group will receive current standard of care, and the intervention group will receive the mobile phone app system in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome measure is change in glycated hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 12 months. RESULTS: The first patient was enrolled on July 28, 2015, and we anticipate completing this study by September, 2018. CONCLUSIONS: This RCT is one of the first to evaluate an evidence-based mobile app that focuses on facilitating lifestyle behavior change driven by contextualized and structured SMBG. The results of this trial will provide insights regarding the usage of mobile tools and consumer-grade devices for diabetes self-care, the economic model of using incentives to motivate behavior change, and the consumption of test strips when following a rigorously structured approach for SMBG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02370719; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02370719 (Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6jpyjfVRs).
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 | 0.054 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".