Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38987796›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2024

Leveraging continuous glucose monitoring as a catalyst for behaviour change: a scoping review.

Michelle R Jospe, Kelli M Richardson, Ahlam A Saleh, Lauren C Bohlen, Jacob Crawshaw, Yue Liao, Kristin Konnyu, Susan M Schembre

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
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

8 authors.

Michelle R Jospe *Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA.
Kelli M Richardson *School of Nutritional Sciences and Wellness, College of Agriculture, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Ahlam A SalehArizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Lauren C BohlenCenter for Health Promotion and Health Equity, Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
Jacob CrawshawCentre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Yue LiaoDepartment of Kinesiology, College of Nursing and Health Innovation, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA.
Kristin KonnyuHealth Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Susan M SchembreDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA. ss4731@georgetown.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9945-7136

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmidst the escalating prevalence of glucose-related chronic diseases, the advancements, potential uses, and growing accessibility of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have piqued the interest of healthcare providers, consumers, and health behaviour researchers. Yet, there is a paucity of literature characterising the use of CGM in behavioural intervention research. This scoping review aims to describe targeted populations, health behaviours, health-related outcomes, and CGM protocols in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that employed CGM to support health behaviour change.

methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from inception to January 2024 for RCTs of behavioural interventions conducted in adults that incorporated CGM-based biological feedback. Citation searching was also performed. The review protocol was registered ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SJREA ).

findingsCollectively, 5389 citations were obtained from databases and citation searching, 3995 articles were screened, and 31 were deemed eligible and included in the review. Most studies (n = 20/31, 65%) included adults with type 2 diabetes and reported HbA1c as an outcome (n = 29/31, 94%). CGM was most commonly used in interventions to target changes in diet (n = 27/31, 87%) and/or physical activity (n = 16/31, 52%). 42% (n = 13/31) of studies provided prospective CGM-based guidance on diet or activity, while 61% (n = 19/31) included retrospective CGM-based guidance. CGM data was typically unblinded (n = 24/31, 77%) and CGM-based biological feedback was most often provided through the CGM and two-way communication (n = 12/31, 39%). Communication typically occurred in-person (n = 13/31, 42%) once per CGM wear (n = 13/31; 42%).

conclusionsThis scoping review reveals a predominant focus on diabetes in CGM-based interventions, pointing out a research gap in its wider application for behaviour change. Future research should expand the evidence base to support the use of CGM as a behaviour change tool and establish best practices for its implementation.

trial registrationdoi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SJREA.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseContinuous Glucose MonitoringHealth BehaviorBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycated HemoglobinHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinBehaviour changeBiomarkersBlood glucose self-monitoringContinuous glucose monitoringFeedback

Identifiers

PMID38987796
PMCPMC11238504

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.