Cited by 23Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePhysical Activity and HealthDiabetes Management and Education

Economic evaluation of physical activity interventions for type 2 diabetes management: a systematic review

Open access
Barbosa, Ana, Whiting, Stephen, Ding, Ding, Brito, João, Mendes, Romeu·2022·European Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Background: Economic evaluation of physical activity interventions has become an important area for policymaking considering the high costs attributable to physical inactivity. However, the evidence for such interventions targeting type 2 diabetes control is scarce. Therefore, the present study aimed to synthesize economic evaluation studies of physical activity interventions for type 2 diabetes management. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement (PROSPERO reference number CRD42021231021). An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Studies were eligible if they included: adults with type 2 diabetes; any physical activity intervention in the community settings; an experimental or quasi-experimental design; and a parameter of economic evaluation [cost analysis of interventions, cost-effectiveness analysis (including cost-utility analysis) and cost-benefit analysis] as an outcome. Results: Ten studies were included in this review: seven were randomized controlled trials and three were quasi-experimental studies. All studies included direct costs, and four also included indirect costs. Four studies demonstrated that physical activity interventions were cost-saving, six studies showed cost-effectiveness, and two studies reported cost-utility. The estimates varied considerably across the studies with different analytical and methodological approaches. Conclusion: Overall, this systematic review found that physical activity interventions are a worth investment for type 2 diabetes management. However, comparability across interventions was limited due to heterogeneity in interventions type, design and delivery, which may explain the differences in the economic measures.

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 · 10.1093/eurpub/ckac074

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Most evaluations of digital interventions focus on management rather than preventing T2D.

    “Most evaluations of digital interventions focus on management by supporting medication adherence, dietary tracking, and remote coaching for individuals already diagnosed with T2D, rather than preventing it [13].”

    From Economic evaluation of wearable fitness trackers versus metformin for preventing type 2 diabetes in the UK population (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Results (Study characteristics; page unavailable) say that all included studies involved people with T2D, and some interventions used phone calls, pedometers, or a heart-rate monitor. But this is a review of physical-activity interventions, not digital interventions generally. It does not establish that most digital-intervention evaluations favor management over prevention or that they focus on medication adherence, dietary tracking, and remote coaching. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 10th edn. Brussels, 2021. Available at: https://diabetesatlas.org/atlas/tenth-edition/ (10 February 2022, date last accessed). 35914061

Authors
Barbosa, A., Whiting, S., Ding, D., Brito, J., & Mendes, R.
Affiliations
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Federação Portuguesa de Futebol (PT)
Corresponding author
Mendes, Romeu
Venue
European Journal of Public Health
Published
2022-08-26
Volume
32
Issue
Supplement_1
Pages
i56-i66
ISSN
  • 1101-1262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-360X
OpenAlex
W4293426067
Cited by
23
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (UIDB/04750/2020 and LA/P/0064/2020)
  • Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/136702/2018)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
physical activity interventions, type 2 diabetes, economic evaluation, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis, diabetes management, community-based intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Exercise, Sedentary Behavior

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