CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsPhysical Activity and HealthDiabetes Management and Research

Impact of a primary care-based mobile health intervention to ‘sit less and move more’ on HbA1c, blood pressure, and other clinical outcomes in office employees with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial

Open access
Alòs, Francesc, Colomer, Ma Àngels, Bort-Roig, Judit, Martin-Cantera, Carlos, Minaya, Alicia, Saigí, Ignasi, Sitjar-Suñer, Miquel, Puig-Ribera, Anna·2025·Primary Care Diabetes
DOI 10.1016/j.pcd.2025.05.010
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a prevalent and costly disease, with sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity as modifiable contributors. Mobile health (mHealth) applications provide complementary strategies for T2D management, but their impact on clinical outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy of an mHealth programme promoting "sit less and move more" at work, prescribed in clinical practice, on clinical and cardiovascular risk factors in office employees with T2D. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial compared usual care (n = 25) with a 13-week mHealth intervention (n = 29) using the Walk@Work-App and web-based tools. Outcomes included HbA1c, glycemia, lipid profile, domain-specific sedentary behaviour (Workforce Sitting Questionnaire), objective physical activity and sedentary behaviour (ActivPal), blood pressure, and BMI at baseline, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Compared to the control group and at 12 months, the intervention group showed a significant reduction in HbA1c (p < 0.05), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.05). Sitting time decreased during leisure activities while watching TV (p = 0.0052) and using electronic devices (p = 0.0397). The number of sedentary breaks and time spent in sedentary bouts <20 min/day increased (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An mHealth programme effectively reduced sedentary behaviour, improved HbA1c and blood pressure, serving as a cost-effective lifestyle intervention for adults with T2D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04092738.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04092738.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A primary care-prescribed 13-week mHealth programme promoting “sit less and move more” at work improved HbA1c and blood pressure at 12 months in office employees with type 2 diabetes compared with usual care. It also reduced several sedentary behaviour domains, though the trial was underpowered because COVID-19 curtailed recruitment.

Key findings

  • At 12 months, the intervention group showed significant reductions versus control in HbA1c (≤−0.5%, p<0.01; maximum between-group difference 0.50% reduction) and in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p<0.05; maximum SBP difference 8.82 mmHg reduction).
  • Sitting time decreased in leisure domains, including while watching TV (p=0.0052) and using electronic devices (p=0.0397); sitting at work fell by 45.63 min/day at 6 months (p<0.01) and 26.25 min/day at 12 months (p<0.05).
  • Objective sedentary behaviour at 3 months (16 measurements: 9 control, 7 intervention) showed greater sedentary breaks in the intervention group (average increase 7.7 breaks/day vs 1.69 breaks/day), mainly from breaks <20 min; time spent in sedentary bouts <20 min/day decreased more in the intervention group (p=0.0328).
  • No significant between-group differences were found for total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, or triglycerides; BMI improved in the intervention group compared with control.

Methods

  • Parallel, single-blind randomized controlled trial in 54 adults with type 2 diabetes (29 intervention, 25 usual care), recruited from three primary health care centres in Barcelona between March and April 2019; eligibility required office work with ≥55% of daily working hours sedentary (OSPAQ), a smartphone, and a work contract of at least 18.5 h/week.
  • The intervention was a 13-week Walk@Work-App mHealth programme using a MetaWearC thigh sensor, self-monitoring, feedback, goal setting, and ramping/maintenance phases to reduce and break occupational sitting and increase movement; controls received usual care.
  • Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6, and 12 months (HbA1c, glucose, lipids, blood pressure, BMI; Workforce Sitting Questionnaire for domain-specific sitting) and with activPAL at baseline and 3 months; analysis used descriptive statistics, baseline homogeneity tests, and one-tailed t tests of within-person differences between groups.

Limitations

  • The paper states the main limitation was sample size: recruitment was suspended because of the COVID-19 pandemic, losses were 45% higher than initially estimated, some participants were excluded when follow-up coincided with the pandemic, and statistical power was lower than desired (0.69 two-sided, 0.80 one-sided with the final sample of 54).
  • The paper states objective sedentary behaviour and physical activity at 3 months had only 16 measurements (9 control, 7 intervention) due to technical and logistical difficulties in primary care, so those results should be considered approximations.
  • The paper notes professionals could not be blinded to the mHealth intervention and intervention patients may have had more visits with health professionals; no differences in medication or diet changes were observed between groups.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pcd.2025.05.010

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

18 of 26 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Mobile applications that include promotion of physical activity with automatic data transfer play an important role in type 2 diabetes self-management.

    “Despite the few studies of mobile applications where the main focus of the intervention is the pattern of physical activity and SB, mobile applications that include the promotion of physical activity, with automatic data transfer that promote motivation and increase physical activity have been shown to play an important role in T2D self-management [37].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37] Årsand, 2012, Mobile health applications to assist patients with diabetes: lessons learned and design implications, J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. source

      The “Physical Activity Monitoring for Type 2 Diabetes” section (page not specified) describes automatic transfer of step counts and says users liked the system’s motivational feedback. The “Mobile Phone-Based Diabetes Diary for Type 2 Diabetes” section (page not specified) describes its role in T2D self-management, but reports usability and acceptance—not a demonstrated increase in physical activity. The citing sentence overstates that outcome. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    The increase in sedentary breaks, mainly breaks <20 min, can justify the clinical improvements observed.

    “In our results there was a greater number of SB breaks in the intervention group, increasing 7.7 interruptions/day, mainly due to the increase in interruptions in periods of time less than 20 min, modifying the characteristic pattern in adults with T2D compared to adults without T2D [11], which can justify the results in the clinical improvements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Colomer, 2022, Differences in free-living patterns of sedentary behaviour between office employees with diabetes and office employees without diabetes: a principal component analysis for clinical practice, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health source
  • Premisecitation

    Adults with type 2 diabetes have a pattern of sedentary behaviour different from adults without diabetes, characterized by fewer daily sedentary breaks and less time sitting in short periods of less than 20 min.

    “Adults with T2D have shown to have a pattern of SB that is different from adults without diabetes [11], characterized by having fewer daily SB interruptions and spending less time sitting in short periods of less than 20 min [11].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Colomer, 2022, Differences in free-living patterns of sedentary behaviour between office employees with diabetes and office employees without diabetes: a principal component analysis for clinical practice, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health source

      The Results (§3.1) report that participants with T2D took fewer daily sedentary breaks and spent less time in sedentary periods under 20 minutes than participants with normal glucose metabolism. The claim generalizes this finding to adults broadly, whereas the study examined office employees. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Prescription of mHealth programmes from healthcare practice is scarce due to the lack of randomized controlled trials that determine their effectiveness on clinical outcomes.

    “However, the prescription of mHealth programmes from healthcare practice is scarce due to the lack of randomized controlled trials that determine their effectiveness on clinical outcomes [16,17].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [16] Veazie, 2018, Rapid evidence review of mobile applications for self-management of diabetes, J. Gen. Intern. Med. source

      The Summary of Evidence and Conclusion and Next Steps (pages unavailable) describe limited evidence for commercially available diabetes apps and call for more rigorous, longer-term studies of clinical outcomes. The paper does not say that prescribing mHealth programmes in healthcare practice is scarce or that a shortage of randomized trials causes scarce prescribing; its Apps for Type 2 Diabetes section reports six randomized controlled trials. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [17] Bonn, 2018, App-technology to increase physical activity among patients with diabetes type 2 the diacert-study, a randomized controlled trial, BMC Public Health source

      The Background (page not provided) identifies a narrower evidence gap: the reviewed studies of physical-activity apps included no patients with type 2 diabetes. It does not say that healthcare practitioners rarely prescribe mHealth programmes or that a lack of randomized trials measuring clinical outcomes causes such scarcity. (LLM, conf=0.73)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    The effect of technology-based interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes on long-term clinical parameters is described in other studies, where the effects were not maintained at 12 months.

    “The effect of technology-based interventions in patients with T2D on long-term clinical parameters is described in other studies, where the effects were not maintained at 12 months [36,38].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [36] Holmen, 2014, A mobile health intervention for self-management and lifestyle change for persons with type 2 diabetes, part 2: one-year results from the norwegian randomized controlled trial RENEWING HEALTH, JMIR mhealth uhealth source

      The Discussion reports no significant difference in HbA1c change between intervention and control groups after one year, supporting the claim that a clinical benefit was not evident at 12 months. It does not establish that an earlier intervention benefit was lost; it says mean HbA1c remained below baseline in all three groups. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [38] Varney, 2014, Effect of hospital-based telephone coaching on glycaemic control and adherence to management guidelines in type 2 diabetes, a randomised controlled trial, Intern. Med. J. source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Synchronizing the mobile application with a wearable device seems to be more effective than interventions without such a device.

    “In addition, the patients synchronized the mobile application with a wearable device, which seems to be more effective [29,39] than interventions without such a device.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [29] Cohen, 1988

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [39] Ashe, 2015, "Not just another walking program": everyday activity supports You (EASY) model-a randomized pilot study for a parallel randomized controlled trial, Pilot Feasibility Stud. source

      The Intervention group and Control group sections describe a Fitbit-supported program versus education without a Fitbit; the Results report 2,080 more steps per day for the program at six months. But the program also included education, social support, and individualized activity guidance. The paper does not establish that synchronizing a mobile app with the wearable—or the wearable itself—made the intervention more effective. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Help and clinical support from professionals increase motivation, intervention adherence and potential clinical benefits in mHealth programmes for type 2 diabetes.

    “Several recent studies of mHealth programmes for T2D have highlighted the importance of help and clinical support from professionals to increase motivation, intervention adherence and potential clinical benefits [42,43].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [42] Lie, 2017, Dropout from an eHealth intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study, J. Med. Internet Res. source
    • cites [43] Cui, 2016, T2DM self-management via smartphone applications: a systematic review and meta-analysis, PLoS One source

      The Results (Descriptions of Studies; page not provided) say the included mHealth studies used personalised feedback from healthcare practitioners. The Results (Study Outcomes) and Discussion report a significant HbA1c reduction for interventions with feedback, supporting potential clinical benefit. The paper does not establish that professional support increased patients’ motivation or intervention adherence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In adults with type 2 diabetes, interrupting sedentary time with short, regular, frequent episodes of light-intensity physical activity attenuates postprandial glucose, insulin, C-peptide and triglycerides, and reduces waist circumference, BMI and blood pressure.

    “In adults with T2D, the interruption of sedentary time with short, regular and frequent episodes of light-intensity physical activity such as walking or simple resistance activities attenuates the level of postprandial glucose, insulin, C-peptide and triglycerides [45], and reduces waist circumference, body mass index (BMI) [46] and blood pressure [47].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [45] Loh, 2020, Effects of interrupting prolonged sitting with physical activity breaks on blood glucose, insulin and triacylglycerol measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Sports Med. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [46] Healy, 2015, Accelerometer-derived sedentary and physical activity time in overweight=obese adults with type 2 diabetes: cross-sectional associations with cardiometabolic biomarkers, PLoS One source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [47] Dempsey, 2018, Sitting less and moving more: Implications for hypertension, Hypertension source

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In office employees with type 2 diabetes, compared with usual care, the mHealth intervention produced a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure at 12 months (p < 0.05; about 8.82 mm Hg).

    “Compared to the control group and at 12 months, the intervention group showed a significant reduction in HbA1c (p < 0.05), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.05).”
    • Also stated in: § 3.3. Study outcomes · plain
      “In comparison with the control group, participants in the intervention group had significant and clinically relevant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; ≤-0.5 %, p < 0.01) and in SBP and DBP (p < 0.05) at the 12-month follow-up (see Table 4).”
    • Also stated in: § 3.3. Study outcomes · plain
      “The maximum difference between the groups for HbA1c and SBP was observed at the 12-month follow-up (0.50 % reduction in HbA1c concentration; 8.82 mm Hg reduction in SBP values).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In office employees with type 2 diabetes, compared with usual care, the mHealth intervention did not significantly change total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, or triglycerides.

    “No significant differences were found between groups regarding total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In office employees with type 2 diabetes, the differences in SBP and DBP between groups were greater at 6 months but remained significant at 12 months.

    “The differences in SBP and DBP units between the groups were also greater at 6 months but remained significant at 12 months.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In office employees with type 2 diabetes, the differences in HbA1c percentage between intervention and control were minimal at 6 months but became clinically and statistically significant at 12 months.

    “The differences in HbA1c percentage were minimal at 6 months, but they became clinically and statistically significant at the 12-month follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The research team recording and monitoring clinical data was blinded to group allocation.

    “The research team, in charge of recording and monitoring the clinical data, was blinded to the randomization of the patient group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The person who performed the data analysis was not involved in data collection.

    “In addition, the person who performed the data analysis was not involved in the data collection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    mHealth programmes improve accessibility to health services, access to information, provide real-time information, and allow patients to monitor their own data.

    “mHealth programmes improve accessibility to health services, improve access to information, provide patients with real-time information, and allow patients to monitor their own data [15].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Wang, 2014, Smartphone interventions for long-term health management of chronic diseases: an integrative review, Telemed. J. E Health source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The independent investigator who assessed participants at the end of the intervention and at follow-ups was blinded to group allocation.

    “The independent investigator who assessed the participants at the end of the intervention and at follow-ups was blinded to the participants' group allocation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The mHealth programme is an effective lifestyle intervention for reducing sedentary behaviour and improving HbA1c and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes.

    “An mHealth programme effectively reduced sedentary behaviour, improved HbA1c and blood pressure, serving as a cost-effective lifestyle intervention for adults with T2D.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study was a parallel, single-blind randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation of 54 eligible adults with type 2 diabetes.

    “This study is a parallel, single-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled 54 eligible adults with T2D with a 1:1 allocation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The RCT was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04092738) and written in accordance with the CONSORT-EHEALTH checklist.

    “This RCT was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov(identification number: NCT04092738) and has been written in accordance with the new CONSORT-EHEALTH checklist (Multimedia Appendix 1 CONSORT-EHEALTH V1.6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Primary Care Research Institute Jordi Gol (P18/102) and all participants provided written informed consent.

    “This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Primary Care Research Institute Jordi Gol with the registration code P18/102.All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Randomization was performed in a 1:1 ratio using a computerized random number generator.

    “Randomization was performed in a 1:1 ratio using a computerized random number generator.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    82% of intervention participants used the mHealth programme for at least 50% of days during the ramping phase.

    “82 % of participants (n = 24) in the intervention group used the mhealth programme for at least 50 % of days during the ramping phase (Fig. 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The sustainability of the intervention effect at 12 months could be explained by the 3-month duration of the intervention.

    “One factor that could explain the sustainability of the effect of the intervention at 12 months could be the 3-month duration of the intervention.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Through the use of tracking devices and continuous feedback, participants became aware of their physical activity and behavioural patterns, allowing them to visualize and measure their achievements, thus increasing motivation to continue making changes to reach their goals.

    “Through the use of tracking devices and continuous feedback, participants became aware of their physical activity and behavioural patterns, allowing them to visualize and measure their achievements, thus increasing motivation to continue making changes to reach their goals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The statistical power of the study is lower than initially desirable, so interpretation of the results requires caution.

    “The statistical power is lower than initially desirable, so we need to be cautious in the interpretation of the results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The funders had no role in the design, analysis, data interpretation or writing of the manuscript.

    “The funders had no role in the design, analysis, data interpretation or writing of the manuscript.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The main limitation of the study was the sample size, because patient recruitment had to be completely suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a reduction in the total sample.

    “The main limitation was the sample size, as patient recruitment had to be completely suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to legal restrictions, logistical issues, and operational problems related to the pandemic.This led to a reduction in the total sample of patients.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
22 of 22

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The short-, medium-, and long-term impact of mHealth programmes in modifying the sedentary behaviour pattern in the clinical population is unclear.

    “In this regard, the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of mHealth programmes in modifying the SB pattern in the clinical population is unclear.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few studies measure the impact of mHealth interventions on promoting physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour and HbA1c levels compared to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care.

    “There are few studies that measure the impact of mhealth interventions on promoting physical activity and reducing SB and HbA1c levels compared to usual care in patients with T2D in primary care.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few mobile applications include changing the sedentary behaviour pattern as the main intervention strategy in the self-management of type 2 diabetes.

    “Few include changing the SB pattern as the main intervention strategy in the self-management of the disease.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Interventions in the workplace can be an effective health promotion strategy.

    “Interventions in the workplace can be an effective health promotion strategy, which has also been endorsed by the World Health Organization.”
4 of 4

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?

  • Over time, repeated goal attainment and visible progress may strengthen patients' sense of mastery and self-efficacy, thereby facilitating a shift from externally prompted behavior to proactive self-management.

    “Over time, repeated goal attainment and visible progress may strengthen patients' sense of mastery and self-efficacy, thereby facilitating a shift from externally prompted behavior to proactive self-management (14, 17, 20, 25, 26).”

    From Behavior change pathways by which digital wearable devices support exercise self-management in type 2 diabetes: a scoping review with machine learning–assisted text mining (2026) · cites this paper as [25]

    The discussion (section 4.2; page unavailable) says that tracking and feedback let participants visualize their achievements, increasing motivation to keep working toward their goals. The intervention description (section 2.6; page unavailable) also documents goal-setting and progress feedback. The paper does not say that repeated attainment strengthens mastery or self-efficacy, or that patients shift from external prompts to proactive self-management. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Eligibility counts differ between Methods and Results

    Major

    The Methods say 75 patients were invited, whereas the Results say 70 were assessed for eligibility. They also give different exclusion counts: 21 versus 10.

  • Cholesterol and triglyceride findings contradict the stated nonsignificant results

    Major

    The narrative says neither measure differed significantly between groups, but Table 4 reports p = 0.00110 for the 12-month total-cholesterol change and p = 0.0184 for the 12-month triglyceride change.

  • Reported overall age is below both group means

    Minor

    The stated overall mean age of 54.498 years cannot be the mean of groups whose reported mean ages are 55.62 and 55.37 years.

  • Number randomized differs between Methods and Results

    Minor

    The Methods describe 54 patients as randomly assigned, but the Results describe 60 as randomly assigned and 54 as completing follow-up.

  • Table 1 states an incompatible total sample size

    Minor

    Table 1 labels its baseline sample as 99, although its group headings contain 25 and 29 participants, totaling 54.

  • Three-month measurement counts disagree

    Minor

    The Results assign the 16 three-month measurements to nine control and seven intervention patients; Table 5 instead labels the groups as ten control and six intervention patients.

  • Control-group sedentary-break categories exceed their reported total

    Minor

    Table 2 reports 49.97 total sedentary breaks per day in controls, but its four mutually exclusive break-duration categories sum to 50.80 per day.

    Reported 49.97 · recomputed 50.8

  • Claimed 12-month workplace-sitting change is not significant in Table 6

    Minor

    The Results claim a significant between-group reduction at 12 months, but Table 6 reports p = 0.2296 for the corresponding baseline-to-12-month change.

8 of 8

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Holmen, 2014, A mobile health intervention for self-management and lifestyle change for persons with type 2 diabetes, part 2: one-year results from the norwegian randomized controlled trial RENEWING HEALTH, JMIR mhealth uhealth, 2, 10.2196/mhealth.3882 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Alòs, F., Colomer, M. À., Bort-Roig, J., Martin-Cantera, C., Minaya, A., Saigí, I., Sitjar-Suñer, M., & Puig-Ribera, A.
Affiliations
  • Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (ES)
  • Universitat de Lleida (ES)
  • Hospital Universitari de Vic (ES)
  • Universitat de Girona (ES)
  • Universitat de Vic - Universitat Central de Catalunya (ES)
Corresponding author
Puig-Ribera, Anna
ORCID
Venue
Primary Care Diabetes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-10
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
434-445
ISSN
1751-9918 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pcd.2025.05.010
OpenAlex
W4411155647
Semantic Scholar
8fe9fb3c0feab6098fe71837731ce925e6d87dc3
Cited by
11
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 1
FWCI
13.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Primary care diabetes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RIUVic (UVic-UCC) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositori ObertUDL (University of Lleida) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Regional Development Fund (redgdps/BJLTB/02/2022)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
  • Sociedad Española de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria
  • Carlos III Health Institute (PI17/01788)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, mobile health, sedentary behavior, physical activity, office workers, HbA1c, blood pressure, lifestyle intervention, workplace health promotion, primary care, sedentary breaks, sedentary bouts
MeSH terms
Healthy Lifestyle, Sitting Position, Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Time Factors, Biomarkers, Exercise, Occupational Health, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, Risk Reduction Behavior, Sedentary Behavior, Mobile Applications

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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