Cited by 41Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Research

Psychological interventions to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Winkley, Kirsty, Upsher, Rebecca, Stahl, Daniel, Pollard, Daniel, Brennan, Alan, Heller, Simon R, Ismail, Khalida·2020·BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

Abstract

The quality of evidence that psychological interventions are effective in improving glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is weak. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions in T2D to assess whether their effectiveness in improving glycemic levels has improved over the past 30 years. We applied the protocol of a systematic review and aggregate meta-analysis conducted to January 2003. We added network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare intervention and control group type against usual care. MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Database, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International were searched from January 2003 to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) of psychological interventions for adults with T2D reported in any language were included. The primary outcome was change in glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in mmol/mol). Data were extracted from study reports and authors were contacted for missing data. 94 RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review since the last review. In 70 RCTs (n=14 796 participants) the pooled mean difference in HbA1c in those randomized to psychological intervention compared with control group was −0.19 (95% CI −0.25 to −0.12), equivalent to a reduction in HbA1c of 3.7 mmol/mol, with moderate heterogeneity across studies (I 2=64.7%, p<0.001). NMA suggested the probability of intervention effectiveness is highest for self-help materials, cognitive–behavioral therapy, and counseling, compared with usual care. Limitations of this study include that there is a possibility that some studies may have been missed if diabetes did not appear in the title or abstract. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for adults with T2D have minimal clinical benefit in improving glycemic control. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016033619.

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 · 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001150

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Interventions' effects on glycemic control and self-care behaviors were inconsistent.

    “However, interventions' effects on glycemic control and self-care behaviors were inconsistent (Winkley et al., 2020).”

    From Effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. (2024) · cites this paper as Winkley et al., 2020

    The Results (Synthesis of results) report substantial heterogeneity in glycemic-control effects across trials, supporting the description of those effects as inconsistent. The Results (Additional analyses, non-protocol) identify studies focused on self-management behaviors, but do not report whether intervention effects on those behaviors were inconsistent. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

10 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928. 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217 PMC3196245 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winkley, K., Upsher, R., Stahl, D., Pollard, D., Brennan, A., Heller, S. R., & Ismail, K.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Winkley, Kirsty
Venue
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-04
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
e001150
ISSN
2052-4897 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3016181541
Cited by
41
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (12/213/10)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
psychological intervention, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, cognitive behavioral therapy, counseling, self-help materials, usual care
MeSH terms
Psychosocial Intervention, Glycemic Control, Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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