Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: other, usual_care.

2 of 4 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Core clinician-reference fields are available or not applicable.

Participants received a phone with the Diabetes-M app only.

Medical App (MA) group

In addition to the usual care provided by their GPs, the participants randomized to the intervention group I—Medical App (MA) group received a phone with the Diabetes-M app only.

Participants received the phone with the Diabetes-M app and telehealth education and counseling by a trained Diabetes nurse educationist.

Medical App + Health Counseling (MA-HC) group

The intervention group II—Medical App + Health Counseling (MA-HC) group received the phone with the Diabetes-M app and telehealth education and counseling by a trained Diabetes nurse educationist.

Participants continued to receive their usual care which included taking their regular medications and three-monthly visits with their general practitioner (GP).

Usual care from their provider

All participants continued to receive the usual care for the duration of the study which includes clinic visits every 3 months and taking their recommended medications.

Digital telehealth improves diabetes management outcomes.

Usual Care

Participants received usual care without the mHealth intervention.

Participants were block randomized into usual care or one of four experimental conditions.

Patients using the app individually without clinician or peer engagement.

T1 - Individual Use

Patients using the app individually without clinician or peer engagement ( n = 5)

Patients using the app with clinician engagement features.

T2 - Clinician Engagement

Patients using the app with clinician engagement features ( n = 5)

Patients using the app with peer engagement features.

T3 - Peer Engagement

Patients using the app with peer engagement features ( n = 6)

Patients using the app with both clinician engagement and peer engagement features.

T4 - Clinician and Peer Engagement

Patients using the app with both clinician engagement and peer engagement features ( n = 6)

Gamified mHealth app improves diabetes management

Standard care with dietary advice

Participants instructed to use the Greenhabit mobile app for lifestyle modification.

Greenhabit intervention group

Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: (1) an intervention group (n=61) instructed to use the Greenhabit mobile app alongside standard care.

Participants received advice on maintaining a healthy diet and followed standard care.

or (2) a control group (n=62) who received advice on maintaining a healthy diet and followed standard care.

Greenhabit app improves diabetes outcomes in adults

Available source content was suppressed because validation identified a conflict.

Control Group (CG)

Participants received a regular educational group course plus the use of the DM2CUA app, which prompted them to engage in educational tasks.

Intervention Group (IG)

People with type 2 diabetes in the intervention group (IG) received the same course plus the use of the DM2CUA app.

Participants received a regular educational group course without the DM2CUA app.

People with type 2 diabetes in the control group (CG) received a regular educational group course.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing unit.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing value.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: sample size arm total mismatch.

Mobile app improves diabetes self-management education

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

1 study contains conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Upstream consistency scoring indicates mixed findings across the evidence.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 8 studies described adult participants.

1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

2 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, usual_care.

2 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved.

3 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 2 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

2 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, other, usual_care.

4 of 5 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 10 of 11 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 5 studies with type 2 diabetes, 2 studies with type 1 diabetes. 8 studies described adult participants.

3 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

3 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

1 supporting study lacks usable structured population information.

4 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 7 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo.

1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 1 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 4 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 4 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, usual_care.

5 of 8 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

3 of 3 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 1 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 13 of 13 supporting studies. 11 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 12 studies described adult participants.

4 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, usual_care.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 2 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Structured population data were available for 12 of 12 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 9 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 12 studies described adult participants.

9 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 5 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 2 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, unknown_unresolved.

Structured population data were available for 10 of 10 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 8 studies with type 2 diabetes, 2 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 8 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, other, usual_care.

3 studies contain conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 5 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 11 of 11 supporting studies. 10 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 11 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 6 of 6 supporting studies. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 6 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 7 of 7 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 4 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, placebo, usual_care.

Mobile app for diabetes self-management × HbA1c

Available supporting studies

Digital telehealth improves diabetes management outcomes.

Gamified mHealth app improves diabetes management

Greenhabit app improves diabetes outcomes in adults

Mobile app improves diabetes self-management education