Cited by 36Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and Research

Impact of a comprehensive digital health programme on HbA1c and weight after 12 months for people with diabetes and prediabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

Open access
McLeod, Melissa, Stanley, James, Signal, Virginia, Stairmand, Jeannine, Thompson, Donna, Henderson, Kelly, Davies, Cheryl, Krebs, Jeremy +3 more·2020·Diabetologia

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this RCT was to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital health programme (BetaMe/Melon) vs usual care in improving the control of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in a primary care population.Methods We conducted a randomised parallel-group two-arm single-blinded superiority trial in the primary care setting in two regions of New Zealand. Eligible participants were identified through Primary Health Organisations and participating practices. Eligibility criteria were as follows: age 18-75 years, HbA 1c 41-70 mmol/mol (5.9-8.6%), not taking insulin, and daily access to the internet. BetaMe/Melon is a 12 month mobile-device and web-based programme with four components: health coaching; evidence-based resources; peer support; and goal tracking. Participants were randomised into the intervention or control arm (1:1 allocation) based upon baseline HbA 1c (prediabetes or diabetes range), stratified by practice and ethnicity. Research nurses and the study biostatistician were blind to study arm. Primary outcomes of the study were changes in HbA 1c and weight at 12 months, using an intention-to-treat analysis.Results Four hundred and twenty-nine individuals were recruited between 20 June 2017 and 11 May 2018 (n = 215 intervention arm, n = 214 control arm), most of whom were included in analyses of co-primary outcomes (n = 210/215, 97.7% and n = 213/214, 99.5%). HbA 1c levels at 12 months did not differ between study arms: mean difference was -0.9 mmol/mol (95% CI -2.9, 1.1) (-0.1% [95% CI -0.3, 0.1]) for the diabetes group and was 0.0 mmol/mol (95% CI -0.9, 0.9) (0.0% [95% CI -0.1, 0.1]) for the prediabetes group. Weight reduced slightly at 12 months for participants in both study arms, with no difference between arms (mean difference -0.4 kg [95% CI -1.3, 0.5]).Conclusions/interpretation This study did not demonstrate clinical effectiveness for this particular programme. Given their high costs, technology-assisted self-management programmes need to be individually assessed for their effectiveness in improving clinical outcomes for people with diabetes.Trial registration www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12617000549325 (universal trial number U1111-1189-9094) FUNDING: This study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Ministry of Health New Zealand and the Healthier Lives National Science Challenge. Graphical abstract.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-020-05261-x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Despite CDC recognition of digital DPPs since 2015, limited RCT evidence has evaluated their effectiveness, with no trials comparing them directly to the criterion-standard DPP.

    “Despite CDC recognition of digital DPPs since 2015, limited RCT evidence has evaluated their effectiveness, with no trials comparing them directly to the criterion-standard DPP.14-19,37”

    From An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Introduction says evidence for technology-assisted diabetes self-management programmes is mixed, and the Sensitivity analyses section describes scant evidence for subgroups. Neither passage establishes that RCT evidence for digital DPPs is limited; the paper’s trial compares a digital programme with usual care, not the criterion-standard DPP. Our copy does not address CDC recognition since 2015 or establish that no direct-comparison trials existed. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior randomized trials of digital DPP adaptations did not include fully automated AI-based experimental groups or a human-led DPP control group.

    “Although previous randomized trials have assessed digital adaptations of the DPP, none had experimental groups that were fully automated and AI-based and none used a human-led DPP control group.14-19”

    From An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Procedures section (page unavailable) describes a digital intervention with individual health coaching and a usual-care control, supporting that this trial had neither a fully automated AI-based intervention nor a human-led DPP control. The paper describes BetaMe/Melon as a diabetes and prediabetes self-management programme, but does not identify it as a digital adaptation of the DPP. It also cannot establish the claim about all previous randomized trials. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McLeod, M., Stanley, J., Signal, V., Stairmand, J., Thompson, D., Henderson, K., Davies, C., Krebs, J., Dowell, A., Grainger, R., & Sarfati, D.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
McLeod, Melissa
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2020-09-04
Volume
63
Issue
12
Pages
2559-2570
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W3083332107
Cited by
36
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Health New Zealand
  • Health Research Council of New Zealand (16/727)
  • Healthier Lives National Science Challenge
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
digital health interventions, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, HbA1c, glycemic control, weight loss, mobile health, online intervention, health coaching, peer support, goal tracking, primary care, usual care comparison, intervention effectiveness, digital divide, diabetes self-management education
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Body Weight, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Prediabetic State

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review