Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31774842›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Efficacy, acceptability and feasibility of daily text-messaging in promoting glycaemic control and other clinical outcomes in a low-resource setting of South Africa: A randomised controlled trial.

Eyitayo Omolara Owolabi, Daniel Ter Goon, Anthony Idowu Ajayi

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Diabetes Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in adults with type 2 diabetes at primary health care clinics in Kimberley South Africa.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Coverage of diabetes complications screening in rural Eastern Cape, South Africa: A cross-sectional survey.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eyitayo Omolara OwolabiDepartment of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Fort Hare, East London, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-5575-7842
Daniel Ter GoonDepartment of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Fort Hare, East London, South Africa.
Anthony Idowu AjayiPopulation Dynamics and Reproductive Health Unit, African Population and Health Research Centre, APHRC Campus, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-6004-3972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

South Africa is confronted with a high burden of diabetes, the majority of which are poorly controlled. The use of mHealth, specifically text messaging for fostering health, is evolving and studies on its efficacy, the majority of which were conducted in developed countries, have documented mixed findings. There is no such study done amongst patients living with diabetes in the resource-poor settings of South Africa. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy, acceptability and feasibility of text-messaging in improving glycaemic control and other clinical outcomes among individuals living with diabetes in low-resource settings in Eastern Cape, South Africa. The study adopted a multi-centre, two-arm, parallel, randomised-controlled trial design. The study was conducted amongst patients with an uncontrolled glycaemic status. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 108) and the control arm (n = 108). Participants in the intervention arm received daily educational text messages on diabetes for six months. Data was collected at baseline and six months post-intervention. Blood glucose, blood pressure and anthropometric measurements followed standard procedure. Mixed-model analysis was used to assess the impact of the text messages on blood glucose while linear regression was used to assess its effect on other clinical outcomes such as weight, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The mean age of the participants was 60.64 (SD± 11.58) years. The majority of the participants had a secondary level of education (95.3%) and earned 104.80 to 991.42 USD per month (67.7%). Both arms of the study showed improvement in their blood glucose levels, but the intervention did not have any significant effect, the mean adjusted change in blood glucose was 0.26 (-0.81 to 1.32), p = 0.634. Also, the intervention did not have any significant effect on weight, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Almost all participants (90.74%) were pleased with the intervention and felt it was helpful. Of those who participated in the intervention, 91% completed the follow-up after 6 months. Unidirectional text-messaging was acceptable and feasible amongst adults living with diabetes in this setting. However, its efficacy in improving glycaemic status and other clinical outcomes remains doubtful. Trial Registration: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR201810599931422.

Indexed as

Text MessagingAgedBlood GlucoseBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationDiabetes MellitusFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient SatisfactionSouth AfricaTelemedicineBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID31774842
PMCPMC6881007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.