ArticleBMC primary care2026
General practitioners` experiences promoting digital activity tracking for patients with type 2 diabetes: a focus group study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical activity is a cornerstone in treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes. In Norway, estimates show that less than 30% of all adults meet the recommendations for physical activity. Most patients expect their GP to support them in adopting a more active lifestyle. However, lifestyle changes are time-consuming, and GPs have expressed the need for specific tools to support their patients effectively.
aimWhat are the experiences of GPs in implementing physical activity as a therapeutic intervention through digital activity trackers to patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN AND
settingUsing semi-structured interview guide, we conducted a focus group study to explore GP’s experiences and perspectives on the use of digital activity trackers with Personal Activity Intelligence (PAI) to promote physical activity. Thirteen GPs and one GP practice nurse aged 38 to 64 years old and located at five different GP`s offices in the south of Norway participated in the study.
methodThe GPs and the GP practice nurse were divided into four focus groups. The participants were recruited through the study DIGIPAS, social media and our network. All interviews were digitally recorded. Data were analysed thematically using systematic text condensation.
resultsThree overarching themes, each comprising several related subthemes, emerged: (1) PAI as an objective measure of physical activity, (2) Activity trackers with PAI as a motivational tool, but not for everybody, and (3) Lack of supportive structures as a barrier for implementation of physical activity as treatment. A digital activity tracker served as a motivational tool for some patients, but the GPs reported technological challenges particularly among elderly patients. They also expressed a necessity for improved structural long-term support in promoting lifestyle changes, as well as more collaboration partners in general practice.
conclusionsA digital activity tracker may support healthy lifestyles for some patients, but successful implementation in general practice requires better usability, integration and governmental support.
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.