| Literature DB >> 27496271 |
Angela Pfammatter1, Bonnie Spring, Nalini Saligram, Raj Davé, Arun Gowda, Linelle Blais, Monika Arora, Harish Ranjani, Om Ganda, Donald Hedeker, Sethu Reddy, Sandhya Ramalingam.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In low/middle income countries like India, diabetes is prevalent and health care access limited. Most adults have a mobile phone, creating potential for mHealth interventions to improve public health. To examine the feasibility and initial evidence of effectiveness of mDiabetes, a text messaging program to improve diabetes risk behaviors, a global nonprofit organization (Arogya World) implemented mDiabetes among one million Indian adults.Entities:
Keywords: diabetes; health promotion; mHealth
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27496271 PMCID: PMC4992169 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5712
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Participant baseline characteristics.
| Overall; n | Control; n | Experimental; n | ||
| Baseline | 1925 | 943 (48.99%) | 982 (51.01%) | |
| Male | 1704 (88.52%) | 881 (93.43%) | 823 (83.81%) | <.001a |
| Urban | 1324 (68.78%) | 867 (91.94%) | 457 (46.54%) | <.001a |
| North India | 1291 (67.06%) | 653 (69.25%) | 638 (64.97%) | .047a |
| Mean age (SD) | 32.2 (10.6) | 32.83 (9.39) | 31.66 (11.64) | .016a |
| Consumes fruit | 46 (2.39%) | 31 (3.29%) | 15 (1.53%) | .033a |
| Consumes vegetables | 75 (3.90%) | 53 (5.62%) | 22 (2.24%) | <.001a |
| Consumes fat | 569 (29.56%) | 267 (28.31%) | 302 (30.75%) | .241 |
| Exercises | 1094 (56.83%) | 601 (63.73%) | 493 (50.20%) | <.001a |
aIt indicates statistical significance (P<.05).
Figure 1Composite behavior change scores by group.
Logistic regression of behaviors at the end of intervention by group with covariates.
| Health Behavior | Predictor | SE | Wald’s χ² | dƒ | p | eβ | ||
| Fruit Consumption (n=1243) | Constant | −0.836 | 0.098 | 72.611 | 1 | <.001a | 0.434 | |
| Baseline | 0.543 | 0.122 | 19.797 | 1 | <.001a | 1.721 | ||
| Location | 0.230 | 0.141 | 2.657 | 1 | .103 | 1.259 | ||
| Gender | −0.132 | 0.199 | 0.441 | 1 | .507 | 0.876 | ||
| Group | 0.549 | 0.133 | 17.023 | 1 | <.001a | 1.731 | ||
| Test | χ² | dƒ | P | |||||
| Overall model evaluation | 51.919 | 4 | <.001a | |||||
| Vegetable Consumption (n=1243) | Constant | −0.357 | 0.110 | 10.452 | 1 | <.001a | 0.700 | |
| Baseline | 0.984 | 0.124 | 62.628 | 1 | <.001a | 2.674 | ||
| Location | 0.135 | 0.153 | 0.774 | 1 | .379 | 1.144 | ||
| Gender | 0.217 | 0.220 | 0.972 | 1 | .324 | 1.242 | ||
| Group | 0.561 | 0.140 | 16.025 | 1 | <.001a | 1.753 | ||
| Test | χ² | dƒ | P | |||||
| Overall model evaluation | 98.424 | 4 | <.001a | |||||
| Fat Consumption (n=1243) | Constant | 0.465 | 0.134 | 12.055 | 1 | .001a | 1.593 | |
| Baseline | 0.463 | 0.144 | 10.332 | 1 | .001a | 1.589 | ||
| Location | 0.446 | 0.179 | 6.215 | 1 | .013a | 1.562 | ||
| Gender | 0.462 | 0.271 | 2.902 | 1 | .088 | 1.587 | ||
| Group | 0.510 | 0.156 | 10.739 | 1 | .001a | 1.665 | ||
| Test | χ² | dƒ | P | |||||
| Overall model evaluation | 46.373 | 4 | <.001a | |||||
| Physical activity (n=1243) | Constant | −0.163 | 0.113 | 2.094 | 1 | .148 | 0.849 | |
| Baseline | 0.963 | 0.121 | 63.347 | 1 | <.001a | 2.620 | ||
| Location | 0.009 | 0.145 | 0.004 | 1 | .951 | 1.009 | ||
| Gender | 0.048 | 0.203 | 0.055 | 1 | .815 | 1.049 | ||
| Group | 0.094 | 0.137 | 0.469 | 1 | .494 | 1.098 | ||
| Test | χ² | dƒ | P | |||||
| Overall model evaluation | 65.295 | 4 | <.001a | |||||
a indicates statistical significance (P<.05).
Figure 2Preventive behaviors present at pre and postintervention by group.