Malte Bue Kongstad1,2, Laura Staun Valentiner1,2, Mathias Ried-Larsen2,3, Karen Christina Walker1, Carsten Bogh Juhl4,5, Henning Langberg1,2. 1. 1 CopenRehab, Section of Social Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. 2 The Centre of Inflammation and Metabolism and the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Denmark. 3. 3 The Danish Diabetes Academy, Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. 4. 4 Research Unit of Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark. 5. 5 Department of Rehabilitation, University of Copenhagen, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of remote feedback intervention compared with standardized treatment on physical activity levels in persons with type 2 diabetes. Further, to investigate the influence of the length of intervention, number of contacts, study size, delivery of feedback, and preliminary face-to-face sessions. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2017, with a priori defined eligibility criteria: randomized controlled trials investigating remote feedback interventions in adult persons with type 2 diabetes, using physical activity as outcome. The effect size was calculated as standardized mean difference (SMD) and was pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Meta-regression analyses were performed to examine if the observed effect size could be attributed to study- or intervention characteristics using these as covariates. RESULTS: The literature search identified 4455 articles of which 27 met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis including a total of 4215 participants found an overall effect size in favour of remote feedback interventions compared to standardized treatment, SMD = 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.49), I2 = 81.7%). Analyses on study characteristics found that the effect on physical activity was only influenced by study size, with a larger effect in small studies. CONCLUSION: Adding remote feedback to standardized treatments aimed at increasing physical activity in persons with type 2 diabetes showed a small to moderate additional increase in physical activity levels. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016033479.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of remote feedback intervention compared with standardized treatment on physical activity levels in persons with type 2 diabetes. Further, to investigate the influence of the length of intervention, number of contacts, study size, delivery of feedback, and preliminary face-to-face sessions. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2017, with a priori defined eligibility criteria: randomized controlled trials investigating remote feedback interventions in adult persons with type 2 diabetes, using physical activity as outcome. The effect size was calculated as standardized mean difference (SMD) and was pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Meta-regression analyses were performed to examine if the observed effect size could be attributed to study- or intervention characteristics using these as covariates. RESULTS: The literature search identified 4455 articles of which 27 met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis including a total of 4215 participants found an overall effect size in favour of remote feedback interventions compared to standardized treatment, SMD = 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.49), I2 = 81.7%). Analyses on study characteristics found that the effect on physical activity was only influenced by study size, with a larger effect in small studies. CONCLUSION: Adding remote feedback to standardized treatments aimed at increasing physical activity in persons with type 2 diabetes showed a small to moderate additional increase in physical activity levels. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016033479.
Authors: Deborah A Greenwood; Michelle L Litchman; Diana Isaacs; Julia E Blanchette; Jane K Dickinson; Allyson Hughes; Vanessa D Colicchio; Jiancheng Ye; Kirsten Yehl; Andrew Todd; Malinda M Peeples Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-08-11