| Title |
Effectiveness of behavioral change techniques employed in eHealth interventions designed to improve glycemic control in persons with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0609-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mihiretu Kebede, Lara Christianson, Zohaib Khan, Thomas L. Heise, Claudia R. Pischke |
| Abstract |
The incorporation of Behavioral Change Techniques (BCTs) in eHealth interventions for the management of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), might be a promising approach to improve clinical and behavioral outcomes of NCDs in the long run. This 3paper reports a protocol for a systematic review that aims to (a) identify the effects of individual BCTs in eHealth interventions for lowering glycated hemoglobin levels (HbA1c) and (b) investigate which additional intervention features (duration of intervention, tailoring, theory-base, and mode of delivery) affect levels of HbA1c in this population. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guideline. To identify eligible studies, an extensive systematic database search (PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) using keywords will be conducted. This review will include randomized controlled trials examining the effects of eHealth interventions on HbA1c in persons with poorly controlled T2DM over a minimum follow-up period of 3 months. Relevant data will be extracted from the included studies using Microsoft Excel. The content of the interventions will be extracted from the description of interventions and will be classified according to the BCT taxonomy v1 tool. The quality of studies will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. If the studies have adequate homogeneity, meta-analysis will be considered. The effect sizes of each BCT will be calculated using the random effect model. The quality of the synthesized evidence will be evaluated employing the Grading of the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. This systematic review is one of the firsts to appraise the effectiveness of eHealth interventions employing BCTs which aimed at improving glycemic control in persons with poorly controlled T2DM. The review will aggregate the effect sizes of BCTs on HbA1c levels. The results may inform future eHealth interventions targeting poorly controlled T2DM populations. PROSPERO CRD42016049940. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 133 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 10% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 40 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 11% |
| Psychology | 8 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 23% |
| Unknown | 42 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,904,790
of 23,573,233 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,456
of 2,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,247
of 328,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.