mHealth prompts within diabetes prevention programs: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mobile health (mHealth) prompts (e.g., text messaging, push notifications) are a commonly used technique within behaviour change interventions to prompt or cue a specific behaviour. Such prompts are being increasingly integrated into diabetes prevention programs (DPPs). While mHealth prompts provide a convenient and cost-effective way to reinforce behaviour change, no reviews to date have examined mHealth prompt use within DPPs. This scoping review aims to: (I) understand how mHealth prompts are being used within behaviour change interventions for individuals at risk for developing type 2 diabetes (T2D); and (II) provide recommendations for future mHealth prompt research, design, and application. Methods: The scoping review methodology outlined by Arksey and O'Malley were followed. Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and SportDiscus were searched. The search strategy combined keywords relating to T2D risk and mHealth prompts in conjunction with database-controlled vocabulary when available (e.g., MeSH for Medline). Results: Of the 4,325 publications screened, 44 publications (based on 33 studies) met the inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. Text messaging was the most widely used mHealth prompt (73%) followed by push notifications (21%). Only 30% of studies discussed the theoretical basis for prompt content and time of day messages were sent, and only 27% provided justification for prompt timing and frequency. Fourteen studies assessed participant satisfaction with mHealth prompts of which only two reported dissatisfaction due to either prompting frequency (hourly) or message content (solely focused on weight). Nine studies assessed behavioural outcomes including weight loss, physical activity, and diabetes incidence, and found mixed effects overall. Conclusions: While mHealth prompts were well-received by participants, there are mixed effects on the influence of mHealth prompts on behavioural outcomes and diabetes incidence. More thorough reporting of prompt content development and delivery is needed, and more experimental research is needed to identify optimal content, delivery characteristics, and impact on behavioural and clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.030 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".