Cited by 14Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Effectiveness of Different Intervention Modes in Lifestyle Intervention for the Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes and the Reversion to Normoglycemia in Adults With Prediabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Open access
Wang, Yachen, Chai, Xin, Wang, Yueqing, Yin, Xuejun, Huang, Xinying, Gong, Qiuhong, Zhang, Juan, Shao, Ruitai +1 more·2025·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

Background: Lifestyle interventions have been acknowledged as effective strategies for preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the accessibility of conventional face-to-face interventions is often limited. Digital health intervention has been suggested as a potential solution to overcome the limitation. Despite this, there remains a significant gap in understanding the effectiveness of digital health for individuals with prediabetes, particularly in reducing T2DM incidence and reverting to normoglycemia. Objective: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of different intervention modes of digital health, face-to-face, and blended interventions, particularly the benefits of digital health intervention, in reducing T2DM incidence and facilitating the reversion to normoglycemia in adults with prediabetes compared to the usual care. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in 9 electronic databases, namely MEDLINE, Embase, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database through Ovid, from the inception to October 2024. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in adults with prediabetes. The overall intervention effect was synthesized using a random-effects model. The I² statistic was used to assess heterogeneity across the RCTs. We performed a subgroup analysis to explore the effectiveness of digital health, face-to-face, and blended interventions compared with the control group, which received usual care. Results: From an initial 7868 records retrieved from 9 databases, we identified 54 articles from 31 RCTs. Our analysis showed that face-to-face interventions demonstrated a significant 46% risk reduction in T2DM incidence (risk ratio [RR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.47-0.63; I²=43%; P<.001), and a 46% increase in the reversion to normoglycemia (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11-1.91; I²=82%; P=.006), when compared with the control group. On the other hand, digital health interventions, compared with the control group, were associated with a 12% risk reduction in T2DM incidence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.01; I²=0.6%; P=.06). Moreover, the blended interventions combining digital and face-to-face interventions suggested a 37% risk reduction in T2DM incidence (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81;I²<0.01%; P<.001) and an 87% increase in the reversion to normoglycemia (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.30-2.69; I²=23%; P=.001). However, no significant effect on the reversal of prediabetes to normoglycemia was observed from the digital health interventions. Conclusions: Face-to-face interventions have consistently demonstrated promising effectiveness in both reductions in T2DM incidence and reversion to normoglycemia in adults with prediabetes. However, the effectiveness of digital health interventions in these areas has not been sufficiently proven. Given these results, further research is required to provide more definitive evidence of digital health and blended interventions in T2DM prevention in the future. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023414313; https://tinyurl.com/55ac4j4n

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 · 10.2196/63975

Cites

75 of 75 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 [37]

    The Discussion’s Strengths and Limitations section says that digital-health studies were limited and that the review could not directly compare intervention modes because of a lack of direct comparative studies. The paper does not establish CDC recognition since 2015 or specifically rule out all trials comparing digital DPPs with the criterion-standard DPP; its evidence concerns the interventions and outcomes covered by the review. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (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: 2

  1. [13]Chinese Society of Endocrinology Chinese Diabetes Society Chinese Endocrinologist Association Intervention for adults with pre-diabetes: a Chinese expert consensus (2023 edition) Chinese Journal of Diabetes Mellitus. 2023 (06) 2023 06 20 484 494 10.3760/cma.j.cn115791-20230509-00188 · DOI
  2. [14]WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee WHO Guideline Recommendations on Digital Interventions for Health System Strengthening 2019 Geneva World Health Organization 31162915

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, Y., Chai, X., Wang, Y., Yin, X., Huang, X., Gong, Q., Zhang, J., Shao, R., & Li, G.
Affiliations
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
Corresponding author
Shao, Ruitai
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2025-01-29
Volume
27
Pages
e63975
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406923450
Cited by
14
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
type 2 diabetes prevention, prediabetes, lifestyle intervention, digital health interventions, face-to-face intervention, blended intervention, diabetes incidence, usual care comparison, HbA1c, HOMA-IR, insulin resistance, blood pressure, physical activity, dietary intervention, sleep duration
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Life Style, Prediabetic State, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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