Dataset Information

Impact of gamification on glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is very high and still rising. Optimal medical therapy and lifestyle management are essential in reducing the long-term complications of T2DM. Gamification, which is the use of design elements, and characteristics of games in a non-gaming context, is an innovative approach to improve healthy behaviour. It thereby could be able to improve glycaemic control in T2DM. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of gamification on glycaemic control expressed by haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in T2DM patients.

Methods and results

All articles from 2000 to 2021 were searched in electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase). The total number of patients was 704. The rate of male participants and their mean ages ranged, respectively, from 46% to 94% and 60 to 63 years. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of T2DM management using gamification which included HbA1c as an outcome measure. A meta-analysis was performed. After removing duplicates, 129 articles were screened and a total of 3 articles corresponding to the inclusion criteria were identified. Haemoglobin A1c was significantly reduced [mean difference -0.21; 95% confidence interval (-0.37 to -0.05); P = 0.01; I ² = 0%] in the intervention group using gamification as compared to the control group.

Conclusion

Gamification has a positive effect on glycaemic control expressed by HbA1c changes in patients with T2DM. However, only three studies were included in this review. More research is needed to confirm the effectiveness of gamification in T2DM.

SUBMITTER: Kaihara T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9242065 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of gamification on glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kaihara Toshiki T Intan-Goey Valent V Scherrenberg Martijn M Falter Maarten M Frederix Ines I Akashi Yoshihiro Y Dendale Paul P

European heart journal open 20211018 3

<h4>Aims </h4>The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is very high and still rising. Optimal medical therapy and lifestyle management are essential in reducing the long-term complications of T2DM. Gamification, which is the use of design elements, and characteristics of games in a non-gaming context, is an innovative approach to improve healthy behaviour. It thereby could be able to improve glycaemic control in T2DM. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate th ...[more]

PMID: 35919887

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveCurrent evidence is conflicting on whether early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus improve pregnancy outcomes. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to assess the rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes among participants with early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus vs those with routine care.Data sourcesA systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library at the Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SciELO from inception to November 2021.Study eligibility criteriaStudies were eligible for inclusion if they described randomized controlled trials comparing early screening with routine care for gestational diabetes mellitus to assess the effects of early screening and treatment on pregnancy outcomes.MethodsAll randomized controlled trials comparing early vs standard screening of gestational diabetes mellitus assessing the effect of early screening (defined as a screening at <20 weeks of gestation) vs routine screening (defined as a screening at ≥20 weeks of gestation) on pregnancy outcomes were included. The primary outcome was defined as large for gestational age, as defined by the trial. The secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes were also evaluated. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of screening strategy and methods.ResultsAfter exclusion, 8 randomized clinical trials (1920 participants) of early screening and treatment vs standard care were included. There were a total of 746 participants with early gestational diabetes mellitus. The risk of large for gestational age at birth did not differ between early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus and routine care among all included trials (8.1 vs 9.0%; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.22). Trials with a protocol of universal screening of participants at their first prenatal visit (>80% screened with HbA1c) and receiving early treatment if the screening test returned positive had a lower risk of large for gestational age (2.3 vs 9.1%; relative risk, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.90) than those who had routine screening and care.ConclusionOverall, early screening and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus did not reduce the risk of large for gestational age at birth. However, trials that screened all participants at their first visit and treated early, most for an HbA1c of 5.7% to 6.4%, had a reduced risk of large for gestational age at birth compared with routine care, suggesting a possible benefit of screening all pregnant patients. However, future well-designed trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have a high risk of secondary physiological and psychological complications. Some interventions based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have been used to control glucose levels and improve negative emotions of patients with DM. This study was undertaken to provide an overview of the effectiveness of CBT-based interventions for improving glycaemic control, psychological, and physiological outcomes in adult patients with DM.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English and Chinese during 2007 and April 2019 were searched through various electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and the Chinese databases (WanFang data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure). The primary outcome variables included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), depression, and anxiety symptoms. The secondary outcomes were weight and cholesterol. Effect sizes were pooled by random-effects modelling using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Physiotherapy Evidence Database tool was used to assess the quality of all included studies.ResultsTwenty-three RCTs comprising 2,619 patients with DM (type 1 and type 2) were included in at least one meta-analysis. The results of the main analysis showed that CBT-based interventions had a better effect on reduced HbA1c (-0.275%, 95% CI: -0.443 to -0.107; p < 0.01) with Hedge's g of 0.466 (95% CI: 0.710 - 0.189), reduced depression symptoms with average reduction of -2.788 (95% CI: -4.450 to -1.207; p < 0.01) and Hedge's g of 0.966 (95% CI: 1.507 - 0.426). Twenty-three RCTs comprising 2,619 patients with DM (type 1 and type 2) were included in this meta-analysis. Several mediators of the effect were found through subgroup analysis for HbA1c and depression symptoms. The interventions emphasising completion homework assignments, stress management, and that used an interpersonal strategy delivered via a group had a better effect on both HbA1c and depression symptoms. In addition, behavioral strategies had a better effect on glycaemic control, and cognitive strategies had a better effect on depression symptoms. There was no difference in the change of FPG, anxiety symptoms, weight, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) between CBT-based interventions and the control conditions.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that CBT-based interventions are effective for improving glycaemic control and depression symptoms in adult patients with type 1 DM (T1DM) or type 2 DM (T2DM) with moderate to large effect size. The results of the subgroup analysis suggest that it is necessary to adopt different types and technical components of CBT according to the population and purpose of the treatment in clinical practice. Due to the high heterogeneity of included studies and other limitations, further study including large number of studies is needed to confirm these results.

Project description:BackgroundThis study was designed to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of empagliflozin (EMPA) as monotherapy or add-on to existing therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of EMPA vs placebo or EMPA plus other antidiabetes drugs vs placebo plus other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in T2DM were recruited from electronic database Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), supplemented by a hand search of the reference lists of selected articles. Main effect sizes were change from baseline on glycemia control, body weight, blood pressure, and complications (i.e., incidence of urinary and genital tract infections, and morbidity of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia). Random-effects model was used to account for clinical or methodologic heterogeneity across studies.ResultsFifteen RCTs with a total number of 7891 individuals (5374 in EMPA group and 2517 in control group) were suitable for this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that significant improvements in glycemia control, body weight, and blood pressure were associated with EMPA application (i.e., monotherapy and add-on therapy) in patient with T2DM when compared with placebo. Meanwhile, EMPA 10 and 20 mg improved glycemia, body weight, and blood pressure control for patients with T2DM. There was no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia and urinary tract infections across EMPA and placebo group. Significant reduced risk of hyperglycemia was revealed in EMPA group vs placebo (risk ratio: 0.34, 95%confidence interval: 0.23-0.49, P < .00001), except in patients on background insulin therapy. However, increased risk of genital infection was noted across EMPA vs placebo (risk ratio: 2.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.80-3.71, P < .00001).ConclusionOur evidence supports the application of EMPA in treatment of patients with T2DM who are obesity or at risk of weight gain.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, type 2 diabetes has continued to increase, now accounting for over 90% of all diabetes cases. Though the magnitude of uncontrolled glycaemic levels in patients with type 2 diabetes is steadily rising, evidence showed that effectively controlled glycaemic levels can prevent complications and improve the quality of life of these patients. As little is known about the effect of educational interventions on this population, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions versus standard care on glycaemic control and disease knowledge among patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsPubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Scopus, African Journals Online and Wiley Online Library were searched. Two authors independently assessed within-trial risk of bias in each included study using revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. A random-effects model was employed to estimate combined effect sizes. Subgroup analyses were employed to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity between studies. The overall certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsA total of 19 trials with 2708 study participants were included in the review. Primary outcomes (glycaemic control) were reported in 18 trials. The pooled estimated impact of educational intervention on glycaemic levels using the random-effects model was -0.83 (95% CI: -1.17 to -0.49, p<0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed greater A1c reductions in those studies with intervention duration of up to 3 months and with empirical intervention designs. Educational interventions led to significant increases in participants' knowledge of type 2 diabetes (standardised mean difference: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.60; I2=93%).ConclusionIn the current review overall, educational interventions can potentially lead to improved glycaemic control levels in patients with type 2 diabetes despite heterogeneity across the studies. Besides, the findings showed that educational interventions could increase disease knowledge among patients with type 2 diabetes.Prospero registration numberCRD42020205838.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether psychological interventions have any effect on glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies to assess their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes.Data sourcesMedline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials searched to September 2004.Review methodsAll included studies were randomised controlled trials in children (including adolescents) or adults with type 1 diabetes that evaluated the effect of a psychological therapy (counselling, cognitive behaviour therapy, family systems therapy, and psychodynamic therapy) on control of diabetes. Data were extracted on sample size, age, duration of diabetes, type of psychological therapy, its mode of delivery, and type of intervention in control group.Main outcome measuresGlycaemic control measured by percentage of glycated haemoglobin and psychological distress. Pooled standardised effect sizes were calculated.Results29 trials were eligible for the systematic review and 21 trials for the meta-analysis. In the 10 studies of children and adolescents included in the meta-analysis, the mean percentage of glycated haemoglobin was significantly reduced in those who had received a psychological intervention compared with those in the control group (pooled standardised mean difference -0.35 (95% confidence interval -0.66 to -0.04), equivalent to a 0.48% (0.05% to 0.91%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. In the 11 studies in adults the pooled standardised mean difference was -0.17 (-0.45 to 0.10), equivalent to 0.22% (-0.13% to 0.56%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. Psychological distress was significantly lower in the intervention groups in children and adolescents (pooled standardised effect size -0.46, -0.83 to -0.10) but not in adults (-0.25, -0.51 to 0.01).ConclusionPsychological treatments can slightly improve glycaemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes but have no effect in adults.

Project description:ObjectiveTo inform the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library searched up to 13 May 2021.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials of three or more weeks investigating the effect of diets with low glycaemic index (GI)/glycaemic load (GL) in diabetes.Outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes included other markers of glycaemic control (fasting glucose, fasting insulin); blood lipids (low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides); adiposity (body weight, BMI (body mass index), waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)), and inflammation (C reactive protein (CRP)).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by random effects models. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence.Results29 trial comparisons were identified in 1617 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes who were predominantly middle aged, overweight, or obese with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes treated by hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin. Low GI/GL dietary patterns reduced HbA1c in comparison with higher GI/GL control diets (mean difference −0.31% (95% confidence interval −0.42 to −0.19%), P<0.001; substantial heterogeneity, I2=75%, P<0.001). Reductions occurred also in fasting glucose, LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides, body weight, BMI, systolic blood pressure (dose-response), and CRP (P<0.05), but not blood insulin, HDL-C, waist circumference, or diastolic blood pressure. A positive dose-response gradient was seen for the difference in GL and HbA1c and for absolute dietary GI and SBP (P<0.05). The certainty of evidence was high for the reduction in HbA1c and moderate for most secondary outcomes, with downgrades due mainly to imprecision.ConclusionsThis synthesis suggests that low GI/GL dietary patterns result in small important improvements in established targets of glycaemic control, blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure, and inflammation beyond concurrent treatment with hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin, predominantly in adults with moderately controlled type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The available evidence provides a good indication of the likely benefit in this population.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04045938.

Dataset Information

Impact of gamification on glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusion

Publications

Impact of gamification on glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets