Trial reportPloS one2023
Episodic future thinking in type 2 diabetes: Further development and validation of the Health Information Thinking control for clinical trials.
Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intertemporal Decision-Making Ability in Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Concept Analysis.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Episodic Future Thinking (EFT) reduces delay discounting and may have the potential as a clinical tool to increase the likelihood of health-promoting behaviors. However, evaluations of EFT in clinical settings require control conditions that match the effort and frequency of cue generation, as well as participants' expectations of improvement. The Health Information Thinking (HIT) control addresses these issues, but how this control affects delay discounting in individuals with diabetes and obesity when utilizing diabetes-management specific health-information vignettes is unknown. Moreover, little research has explored whether EFT reduces delay discounting in individuals with type 2 diabetes. To this end, we examined the impact of EFT, HIT, and a secondary no-cue control condition (NCC; assessments as usual) on delay discounting in 434 adults with self-reported type 2 diabetes and obesity recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk. After completing an initial screening questionnaire, eligible participants reported demographics, then were randomized to EFT, HIT, or NCC conditions. Following the generation of seven EFT or HIT cues, participants assigned to EFT or HIT conditions completed a delay discounting task while imagining EFT or HIT cues; no-cue participants completed the task without cues. EFT participants demonstrated significantly lower delay discounting levels than HIT or NCC participants; no differences in delay discounting between HIT and NCC participants were observed. These results suggest that engaging in EFT, but not diabetes-specific HIT, results in lower delay discounting in adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity. This provides further evidence for the appropriateness of the HIT control for clinical trials examining the effect of EFT on delay discounting in adults with self-reported type 2 diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.