ArticlePloS one2026
Examining the uptake, retention, and effectiveness of a national online type 2 diabetes self-management intervention in England (Healthy Living): A retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- An Evaluation of Digital Health Tools to Support Multidisciplinary Teams in Managing Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is increasing rapidly in the UK and worldwide and is linked to adverse outcomes including premature death. Previous studies have shown that developing self-management skills in this population can lead to health improvements. The National Health Service in England has implemented Healthy Living (HL), an online Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) intervention, offering information about T2DM and help with adopting healthy behaviours.
aimsTo examine the uptake and retention of people living with T2DM registered with Healthy Living and how its use is associated with changes in 1-year clinical outcomes (effectiveness) compared with people with T2DM who did not register (controls).
methodsAnonymised linked patient-level Healthy Living and National Diabetes Audit (NDA) data were used to identify adults with T2DM in England. Multivariable logistic regression models identified predictors of participation in Healthy Living (uptake). Using 1-to-5 case-control propensity score matching (on age, sex, baseline HbA1c, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP), cholesterol, ethnicity, deprivation) and multivariable linear and logistic models, we examined how Healthy Living use was related to 1-year HbA1c, BMI, BP, new insulin use, and completion of eight care processes recommended for people with diabetes (effectiveness). Several sensitivity and sub-group analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.
resultsA total of 21,820 people with T2DM activated a Healthy Living account. Compared with non-participants, account activators (cases) were more likely to be female (OR: 1.91; 95%CI: 1.85, 1.96), less likely to be Asian (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.37) or Black (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.60) compared with white people. Assessing effectiveness, 4,940 Healthy Living cases were matched to 24,685 NDA controls. Compared with controls, at 1-year, Healthy Living cases had lower HbA1c (by -1.3 mmol/mol (95% CI: -1.7, -0.8) or -0.1% (95% CI: -0.2, -0.1)); BMI (-0.2 kg/m2; 95% CI: -0.3, -0.1), systolic BP (-1.2 mmHg; 95% CI: -1.6, -0.7), and diastolic BP (-0.6 mmHg; 95% CI: -0.9, -0.3); higher odds of completing care processes (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5, 1.8), but non-significant for insulin use (OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.8, 1.2). The results of the sensitivity and sub-group analyses were consistent with the main findings.
conclusionsPeople who activated a Healthy Living account experienced, on average, moderate health benefits compared with non-participants. These benefits would be expected to reduce risks for diabetes-related complications at a population level.
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.