A Mobile-Based Intervention for Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mobile-based interventions appear to be promising in ameliorating huge burdens experienced by patients with type 2 diabetes. However, it is unclear how effective mobile-based interventions are in glycemic management of patients with type 2 diabetes based on real-world evidence. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile-based intervention on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes based on real-world population data. Methods This retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study analyzed longitudinal data from a clinical electronic health database. The study population included 37,913 patients with type 2 diabetes at cohort entry between October 1, 2016, and July 31, 2018. A total of 2400 patients were matched 1:1, using propensity score matching, into the usual care and mobile health (mHealth) groups. The primary outcomes of glycemic control included control rates of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), and postprandial 2-hour blood glucose (P2BG). Mean values and variation trends of difference with 95% CI were the secondary outcomes. The general linear model was used to calculate repeated-measures analyses of variance to examine the differences between the two groups. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Of the 2400 patients included in the analysis, 1440 (60.00%) were male and the mean age was 52.24 years (SD 11.56). At baseline, the control rates of HbA1c, FBG, and P2BG in the mHealth and usual care groups were 45.75% versus 47.00% (P=.57), 38.03% versus 32.76% (P=.07), and 47.32% versus 47.89% (P=.83), respectively. At the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups, the mHealth group reported higher control rates of HbA1c than did the usual care group: 69.97% versus 46.06% (P<.001), 71.89% versus 61.24% (P=.004), 75.38% versus 53.44% (P<.001), and 72.31% versus 46.70% (P<.001), respectively. At the four follow-up sessions, the control rates of FBG in the mHealth and usual care groups were statistically different: 59.24% versus 34.21% (P<.001), 56.61% versus 35.14% (P<.001), 59.54% versus 34.99% (P<.001), and 59.77% versus 32.83% (P<.001), respectively. At the four follow-up sessions, the control rates of P2BG in the mHealth group were statistically higher than in the usual care group: 79.72% versus 48.75% (P<.001), 80.20% versus 57.45% (P<.001), 81.97% versus 54.07% (P<.001), and 76.19% versus 54.21% (P=.001), respectively. At the four follow-up sessions, the percentages of HbA1c reduction in the mHealth group were 8.66% (95% CI 6.69-10.63), 10.60% (95% CI 8.66-12.54), 10.64% (95% CI 8.70-12.58), and 8.11% (95% CI 6.08-10.14), respectively. At the four follow-up sessions, the percentages of P2BG reduction in the mHealth group were 8.44% (95% CI 7.41-10.73), 17.77% (95% CI 14.98-20.23), 16.23% (95% CI 13.05-19.35), and 16.91% (95% CI 13.17-19.84), respectively. Starting from the sixth month, the mean HbA1c and P2BG values in the two groups increased slightly. Conclusions This mobile-based intervention delivered by a multidisciplinary team can better improve glycemic control rates of patients with type 2 diabetes than usual care. These effects were best sustained within the first 6 months. Starting from the sixth month, intensive management needs to be conducted to maintain long-term effectiveness of the mobile-based intervention.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".