Effectiveness of Social Cognitive Theory–Based Interventions for Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For those living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), failing to engage in self-management behaviors leads to poor glycemic control. Social cognitive theory (SCT) has been shown to improve health behaviors by altering cognitive processes and increasing an individual's belief in their ability to accomplish a task. OBJECTIVE: We aim to present a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to systematically identify, evaluate, and analyze the effect of SCT-based interventions to improve glycemic control in adults with T2DM. METHODS: This protocol follows the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Data sources will include PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, and data will be reviewed with the use of customized text mining software. Studies examining SCT-based behavioral interventions for adults diagnosed with T2DM in randomized controlled trials located in the outpatient setting will be included. Intervention effectiveness will be compared with routine care. Screening and data collection will be performed in multiple stages with three reviewers as follows: (1) an independent review of titles/abstracts, (2) a full review, and (3) data collection with alternating teams of two reviewers for disputes to be resolved by a third reviewer. Study quality and risk of bias will be assessed by three reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Standardized mean differences will be used to describe the intervention effect sizes with regard to self-efficacy and diabetes knowledge. The raw mean difference of HbA1c will be provided in a random effects model and presented in a forest plot. The expected limitations of this study are incomplete data, the need to contact authors, and analysis of various types of glycemic control measures accurately within the same data set. RESULTS: This protocol was granted institutional review board exemption on October 7, 2019. PROSPERO registration (ID: CRD42020147105) was received on April 28, 2020. The review began on April 29, 2020. The results of the review will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals, and meetings. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will appraise the effectiveness of SCT-based interventions for adults diagnosed with T2DM and provide the most effective interventions for improving health behaviors in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020147105; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=147105. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/17148.
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 | 0.081 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.007 |
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".