Effect of a Smartphone App on Weight Change and Metabolic Outcomes in Asian Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Lifestyle Behaviors | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Visual Abstract. Effect of a Smartphone App on Weight Change and Metabolic Outcomes in Asian Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
Effect of a Smartphone App on Weight Change and Metabolic Outcomes in Asian Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
Figure.  Participant Flowchart
Participant Flowchart
Table 1.  Baseline Characteristics of Study Participants
Baseline Characteristics of Study Participants
Table 2.  Primary and Secondary Outcomes at 3 and 6 Months After Enrollment Using Intention-to-Treat Analysisa
Primary and Secondary Outcomes at 3 and 6 Months After Enrollment Using Intention-to-Treat Analysisa
Table 3.  Changes in HbA1c and Fasting Blood Glucose at 3 and 6 Months of Intervention for HbA1c Subgroupsa
Changes in HbA1c and Fasting Blood Glucose at 3 and 6 Months of Intervention for HbA1c Subgroupsa
1.
Nathan  DM, Buse  JB, Davidson  MB,  et al; American Diabetes Association; European Association for Study of Diabetes.  Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy.   Diabetes Care. 2009;32(1):193-203. doi:10.2337/dc08-9025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Magkos  F, Yannakoulia  M, Chan  JL, Mantzoros  CS.  Management of the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes through lifestyle modification.   Annu Rev Nutr. 2009;29:223-256. doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-080508-141200PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
American Diabetes Association.  Standards of medical care in diabetes—2010.   Diabetes Care. 2010;33(suppl 1):S11-S61. doi:10.2337/dc10-S011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Pastors  JG, Franz  MJ, Warshaw  H, Daly  A, Arnold  MS.  How effective is medical nutrition therapy in diabetes care?   J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(7):827-831. doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(03)00466-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Franz  MJ, MacLeod  J, Evert  A,  et al.  Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics nutrition practice guideline for type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults: systematic review of evidence for medical nutrition therapy effectiveness and recommendations for integration into the nutrition care process.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(10):1659-1679. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2017.03.022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Morris  SF, Wylie-Rosett  J.  Medical nutrition therapy: a key to diabetes management and prevention.   Clinical Diabetes. 2010;28(1):12-18. doi:10.2337/diaclin.28.1.12Google ScholarCrossref
7.
American Diabetes Association.  Nutrition recommendations and interventions for diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association.  2008;31(suppl 1):S61-S78. doi:10.2337/dc08-S061
8.
American Diabetes Association.  Obesity management for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2020.   Diabetes Care. 2020;43(suppl 1):S89-S97. doi:10.2337/dc20-S008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Ryan  DH, Yockey  SR.  Weight loss and improvement in comorbidity: differences at 5%, 10%, 15%, and over.   Curr Obes Rep. 2017;6(2):187-194. doi:10.1007/s13679-017-0262-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Ramachandran  A, Chamukuttan  S, Shetty  SA, Arun  N, Susairaj  P.  Obesity in Asia—is it different from rest of the world?   Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012;28(s2)(suppl 2):47-51. doi:10.1002/dmrr.2353PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Abarca-Gómez  L, Abdeen  ZA, Hamid  ZA,  et al; NCD Risk Factor Collaboration.  Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults.   The Lancet. 2017;390(10113):2627-2642. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32129-3Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Pagoto  S.  The current state of lifestyle intervention implementation research: where do we go next?   Transl Behav Med. 2011;1(3):401-405. doi:10.1007/s13142-011-0071-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Rushing  J, Wing  R, Wadden  TA,  et al; Look AHEAD Research Group.  Cost of intervention delivery in a lifestyle weight loss trial in type 2 diabetes: results from the Look AHEAD clinical trial.   Obes Sci Pract. 2017;3(1):15-24. doi:10.1002/osp4.92PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Moroshko  I, Brennan  L, O’Brien  P.  Predictors of dropout in weight loss interventions: a systematic review of the literature.   Obes Rev. 2011;12(11):912-934. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00915.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Mitchell  LJ, Ball  LE, Ross  LJ, Barnes  KA, Williams  LT.  Effectiveness of dietetic consultations in primary health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(12):1941-1962. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2017.06.364PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Fakih El Khoury  C, Karavetian  M, Halfens  RJG, Crutzen  R, Khoja  L, Schols  JMGA.  The effects of dietary mobile apps on nutritional outcomes in adults with chronic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019;119(4):626-651. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2018.11.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Hou  C, Carter  B, Hewitt  J, Francisa  T, Mayor  S.  Do mobile phone applications improve glycemic control (HbA1c) in the self-management of diabetes? a systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE of 14 randomized trials.   Diabetes Care. 2016;39(11):2089-2095. doi:10.2337/dc16-0346PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Cui  M, Wu  X, Mao  J, Wang  X, Nie  M.  T2DM self-management via smartphone applications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0166718. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166718PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Klasnja  P, Pratt  W.  Healthcare in the pocket: mapping the space of mobile-phone health interventions.   J Biomed Inform. 2012;45(1):184-198. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2011.08.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Chen  J, Gemming  L, Hanning  R, Allman-Farinelli  M.  Smartphone apps and the nutrition care process: current perspectives and future considerations.   Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(4):750-757. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2017.11.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Napier  AD, Ancarno  C, Butler  B,  et al.  Culture and health.   Lancet. 2014;384(9954):1607-1639. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61603-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Asad  AL, Kay  T.  Toward a multidimensional understanding of culture for health interventions.   Soc Sci Med. 2015;144:79-87. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Castro  FG, Barrera  M  Jr, Holleran Steiker  LK.  Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions.   Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010;6(1):213-239. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-033109-132032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Dong  Y, Wang  P, Dai  Z,  et al.  Increased self-care activities and glycemic control rate in relation to health education via WeChat among diabetes patients: a randomized clinical trial.   Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(50):e13632. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000013632PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Kim  EK, Kwak  SH, Jung  HS,  et al.  The effect of a smartphone-based, patient-centered diabetes care system in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial for 24 weeks.   Diabetes Care. 2019;42(1):3-9. doi:10.2337/dc17-2197PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Yang  Y, Lee  EY, Kim  HS, Lee  SH, Yoon  KH, Cho  JH.  Effect of a mobile phone-based glucose-monitoring and feedback system for type 2 diabetes management in multiple primary care clinic settings: cluster randomized controlled trial.   JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(2):e16266. doi:10.2196/16266PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Zhang  L, He  X, Shen  Y,  et al.  Effectiveness of smartphone app-based interactive management on glycemic control in Chinese patients with poorly controlled diabetes: randomized controlled trial.   J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(12):e15401. doi:10.2196/15401PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Zhou  W, Chen  M, Yuan  J, Sun  Y.  Welltang—a smart phone-based diabetes management application—improves blood glucose control in Chinese people with diabetes.   Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016;116:105-110. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2016.03.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Czajkowski  SM, Powell  LH, Adler  N,  et al.  From ideas to efficacy: the ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases.   Health Psychol. 2015;34(10):971-982. doi:10.1037/hea0000161PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Mohr  DC, Cuijpers  P, Lehman  K.  Supportive accountability: a model for providing human support to enhance adherence to eHealth interventions.   J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e30. doi:10.2196/jmir.1602PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Butryn  ML, Webb  V, Wadden  TA.  Behavioral treatment of obesity.   Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2011;34(4):841-859. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2011.08.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Lim  SL, Johal  J, Ong  KW,  et al.  Lifestyle intervention enabled by mobile technology on weight loss in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: randomized controlled trial.   JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(4):e14802. doi:10.2196/14802PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.   JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053Google ScholarCrossref
34.
American Diabetes Association.  Summary of revisions: standards of medical care in diabetes–2019.   Diabetes Care. 2019;42(suppl 1):S4-S6. doi:10.2337/dc19-Srev01PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Rao  G, Burke  LE, Spring  BJ,  et al; American Heart Association Obesity Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; Stroke Council.  New and emerging weight management strategies for busy ambulatory settings: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association endorsed by the Society of Behavioral Medicine.   Circulation. 2011;124(10):1182-1203. doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e31822b9543PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Lane  P.  Handling drop-out in longitudinal clinical trials: a comparison of the LOCF and MMRM approaches.   Pharm Stat. 2008;7(2):93-106. doi:10.1002/pst.267PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Terranova  CO, Brakenridge  CL, Lawler  SP, Eakin  EG, Reeves  MM.  Effectiveness of lifestyle-based weight loss interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015;17(4):371-378. doi:10.1111/dom.12430PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Williams  RL, Wood  LG, Collins  CE, Callister  R.  Effectiveness of weight loss interventions—is there a difference between men and women: a systematic review.   Obes Rev. 2015;16(2):171-186. doi:10.1111/obr.12241PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Razaz  JM, Rahmani  J, Varkaneh  HK, Thompson  J, Clark  C, Abdulazeem  HM.  The health effects of medical nutrition therapy by dietitians in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Prim Care Diabetes. 2019;13(5):399-408. doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2019.05.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Ma  J, Yank  V, Xiao  L,  et al.  Translating the Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle intervention for weight loss into primary care: a randomized trial.   JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(2):113-121. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.987PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Chen  L, Pei  J-H, Kuang  J,  et al.  Effect of lifestyle intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.   Metabolism. 2015;64(2):338-347. doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2014.10.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Wing  RR; Look AHEAD Research Group.  Long-term effects of a lifestyle intervention on weight and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: four-year results of the Look AHEAD trial.   Arch Internl Med. 2010;170(17):1566-1575. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.334Google Scholar
43.
Sherifali  D, Nerenberg  K, Pullenayegum  E, Cheng  JE, Gerstein  HC.  The effect of oral antidiabetic agents on A1C levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Diabetes Care. 2010;33(8):1859-1864. doi:10.2337/dc09-1727PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Stratton  IM, Adler  AI, Neil  HAW,  et al.  Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study.   BMJ. 2000;321(7258):405-412. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
American Diabetes Association.  Implications of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study.   Diabetes Care. 2002;25(suppl 1):s28-s32. doi:10.2337/diacare.25.2007.S28PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Coppell  KJ, Kataoka  M, Williams  SM, Chisholm  AW, Vorgers  SM, Mann  JI.  Nutritional intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes who are hyperglycaemic despite optimised drug treatment—Lifestyle Over and Above Drugs in Diabetes (LOADD) study: randomised controlled trial.   BMJ. 2010;341:c3337. doi:10.1136/bmj.c3337PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Wolf  AM, Conaway  MR, Crowther  JQ,  et al; Improving Control with Activity and Nutrition (ICAN) Study.  Translating lifestyle intervention to practice in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: Improving Control with Activity and Nutrition (ICAN) study.   Diabetes Care. 2004;27(7):1570-1576. doi:10.2337/diacare.27.7.1570PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Goldhaber-Fiebert  JD, Goldhaber-Fiebert  SN, Tristán  ML, Nathan  DM.  Randomized controlled community-based nutrition and exercise intervention improves glycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetic patients in rural Costa Rica.   Diabetes Care. 2003;26(1):24-29. doi:10.2337/diacare.26.1.24PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Andrews  RC, Cooper  AR, Montgomery  AA,  et al.  Diet or diet plus physical activity versus usual care in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: the Early ACTID randomised controlled trial.   Lancet. 2011;378(9786):129-139. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60442-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
American Diabetes Association.  Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2017.   Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):917-928. doi:10.2337/dci18-0007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Pastors  JG, Warshaw  H, Daly  A, Franz  M, Kulkarni  K.  The evidence for the effectiveness of medical nutrition therapy in diabetes management.   Diabetes Care. 2002;25(3):608-613. doi:10.2337/diacare.25.3.608PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
GSM Association. The mobile economy Asia Pacific 2020. Published 2020. Accessed April 21, 2021. https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSMA_MobileEconomy_2020_AsiaPacific.pdf
53.
Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore. Annual survey on Infocomm usage in households and by individuals for 2018. Published 2018. Accessed November 5, 2020. https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/Imda/Files/Industry-Development/Fact-and-Figures/Infocomm-usage-HI/Annual-Survey-on-Infocomm-Usage-by-Households-and-Individuals-Report-2018.pdf
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Nutrition, Obesity, and Exercise
    June 3, 2021

    Effect of a Smartphone App on Weight Change and Metabolic Outcomes in Asian Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Dietetics, National University Hospital, Singapore
    • 2Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia
    • 3Caring Future Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Australia
    • 4Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore
    • 5Singapore Institute for Clinical Services, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore
    • 6National University Polyclinics, Singapore
    • 7Division of Endocrinology, National University Hospital, Singapore
    • 8Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2112417. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12417
    Key Points

    Question  What is the effect of a culturally contextualized smartphone-based lifestyle intervention on weight change and metabolic outcomes in Asian adults who have overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes compared with usual care?

    Findings  In this randomized clinical trial of 204 adults with type 2 diabetes, the use of a smartphone app tracking personal health data and using integrated behavioral modification strategies led to significantly greater reductions in weight and hemoglobin A1c, along with a significantly greater proportion of patients with a reduction in diabetes medication dosages compared with usual care at 6 months.

    Meaning  These findings suggest that a mobile health lifestyle intervention has the potential to improve weight and glycemic outcomes among individuals who have overweight or obesity in an Asian population with type 2 diabetes.

    Abstract

    Importance  Lifestyle interventions are effective in diabetes management, with smartphone apps that manage health data and dietary and exercise schedules gaining popularity. However, limited evidence from randomized clinical trials exists regarding the effectiveness of smartphone-based interventions among Asian adults with type 2 diabetes.

    Objective  To compare the effects of a culturally contextualized smartphone-based intervention with usual care on weight and metabolic outcomes.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This randomized clinical trial conducted at multiple primary care centers in Singapore included 305 adults with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) of 23 or greater who had literacy in English and smartphone access. Participants were recruited between October 3, 2017, and September 9, 2019, and were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by gender, age, and BMI) to intervention (99 participants) or control (105 participants) groups. Participants’ data were analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis.

    Interventions  Both control and intervention participants received diet and physical activity advice from a dietitian at a baseline face-to-face visit. Intervention participants additionally used a smartphone app to track weight, diet, physical activity, and blood glucose and then communicated with dietitians for 6 months.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Primary outcome was change in body weight, while secondary outcomes were changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, blood pressure, lipids, and diet. Post hoc analyses included glycemic changes in the subgroup with HbA1c levels of 8% or greater and diabetes medication changes.

    Results  Among the 204 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 51.2 [9.7] years; 132 [64.7%] men), baseline mean (SD) BMI was 30.6 (4.3). Compared with the control group, intervention participants achieved significantly greater reductions in weight (mean [SD] change, −3.6 [4.7] kg vs −1.2 [3.6] kg) and HbA1c levels (mean [SD] change, −0.7% [1.2] vs −0.3% [1.0]), with a greater proportion having a reduction in diabetes medications (17 participants [23.3%] vs 4 participants [5.4%]) at 6 months. The intervention led to a greater HbA1c reduction among participants with HbA1c levels of 8% or higher (mean [SD] change, −1.8% [1.4] vs −1.0% [1.4]; P = .001). Intergroup differences favoring the intervention were also noted for fasting blood glucose, diastolic blood pressure, and dietary changes.

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this study, a smartphone-based lifestyle intervention was more effective in achieving weight and glycemic reductions among Asian adults with type 2 diabetes compared with usual care, supporting the use of apps in lifestyle intervention delivery.

    Trial Registration  anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617001112358

    Introduction

    Lifestyle interventions delivered by health care professionals to promote weight loss are recommended as a key treatment in type 2 diabetes management.1-3 Medical nutrition therapy, in particular, improves weight and metabolic outcomes.4-6 Weight loss in turn improves insulin resistance associated with diabetes-related metabolic disorders,3,7 with glycemic improvements observed at 3% weight loss,8,9 and is particularly relevant in Asian populations with increasing rates of obesity.10,11 Traditionally, lifestyle interventions involve multiple face-to-face sessions, which tend to be labor-intensive and require facilities planning.12,13 Studies have shown that travel distances, time constraints, and costs are factors detracting from the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions, with drop-out rates as high as 35%.14,15

    In recent years, smartphone apps have been gaining popularity in the delivery of lifestyle interventions in chronic disease management, owing to the ability to circumvent these issues.16-20 To improve the acceptability, adherence, and effectiveness of interventions, tailoring app content to the cultural norms and values of users is recommended.21-23 However, only a small number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have investigated the effect of culturally contextualized smartphone-based interventions on weight loss in Asian populations with type 2 diabetes.24-28

    Nutritionist Buddy Diabetes is a locally contextualized mobile app that integrates behavioral treatment, evidence-based diabetes management strategies,29-31 and dietitian support to promote weight and glycemic control. (eAppendix, eFigure 1, and eFigure 2 in Supplement 1 provide further description and a full list of features.) The app includes a local food database and an algorithm that generates healthier food alternatives based on the cuisines of foods keyed in by users, which is especially pertinent in multicultural Singapore. Educational videos available in the app were developed locally. The app also offers support from local dietitians familiar with cultural practices and festivities of local ethnic groups, who are able to consider culturally specific notions of stigma and provide recommendations in line with the cultural norms of users. In a 2020 RCT,32 the app was found to significantly reduce body weight among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In this trial, the Diabetes Lifestyle Intervention using Technology Empowerment (D’LITE) study, we compared the effectiveness of a weight loss lifestyle intervention delivered using the app via in-app coaching by dietitians with usual care, focusing on body weight change and metabolic profiles among Asian patients with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity who were not receiving insulin.

    Methods
    Study Design

    The D’LITE study was a parallel multicenter 2-group RCT (protocol available in Supplement 2). Follow-up at 1 year and 2 years is ongoing; this article presents results from the first 6 months of study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki,33 and received ethical approval from the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board in Singapore. All participants provided written consent prior to study participation. The trial was prospectively registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

    Participants and Eligibility Criteria

    Participants were recruited between October 2017 and September 2019 from health screening facilities by research staff. To facilitate enrollment, recruitment was extended to include government polyclinics, general practitioner clinics, and hospital outpatient clinics in Singapore. Inclusion criteria included the presence of physician-diagnosed type 2 diabetes, age between 21 to 75 years, body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) 23.0 or greater, literacy in English, and smartphone access. Participants with heart failure, advanced kidney disease, type 1 diabetes, severe cognitive or psychological disabilities, depression, untreated hypothyroidism, thalassemia, or blood disorders or who were pregnant were excluded from the study. Early in recruitment, participants with insulin use were excluded because of concerns over hypoglycemia risk, as the study did not provide services for the active titration of diabetes therapy as intervention progressed. The decision was also made to exclude participants with untreated anemia or medication noncompliance to minimize confounding factors on glycemic outcomes.

    Randomization and Masking

    Eligible participants were randomized to either the control or intervention group in a 1:1 allocation ratio via block randomization stratified by gender, BMI (<27.5 or ≥27.5), and age (<50 years or ≥50 years), which was changed from a previous stratification (at 40 years) 2 months postrecruitment due to a noticeably larger number of older participants. Participants were allocated to either group by drawing personally from sealed, stratified opaque envelopes, each containing an equal proportion of intervention and control group assignments. To ensure high-quality envelope concealment, third-party personnel not involved in the study prepared the envelopes before the commencement of recruitment using matched block methods. Randomization was performed at 3 government polyclinics and 1 hospital outpatient clinic, which the research team visited on a rotational basis. Masking of participants and dietitians was not possible following group allocation because of the nature of the intervention.

    Interventions

    All control and intervention participants received a single 45- to 60-minute advisory session from a registered research dietitian concerning diet and physical activity, as per American Dietetic Association (ADA) guidelines,34 at baseline. All participants were issued a standardized digital weighing scale (Omron Healthcare) and continued to receive standard diabetes care from their usual health care professionals.

    Participants assigned to the intervention group were required to use the app for 6 months to track weight twice weekly and diet and physical activity daily, and to communicate regularly with the research dietitians via the app. Intervention participants chose a weight loss goal of 3% to 10%, depending on individual preferences, and were encouraged to achieve individualized calorie and carbohydrate goals and an activity goal of 10 000 steps daily set by the app. They were also provided with a glucometer (Abbott Laboratories) to track fasting and postprandial blood glucose 2 days weekly. Educational videos lasting approximately 3 minutes each were pushed to the participants weekly via the app in the first 3 months. The 2 dietitians on the research team (K.W.O. and J.J.) supported the participants by messaging them via the app every few days in the first 3 months, and weekly in the subsequent 3 months, spending 1 to 15 minutes on each participant each time. They regularly reviewed goals with intervention participants, provided individualized feedback, and used the usual motivational techniques to guide participants in making lifestyle changes, including helping them to identify and cope with barriers and to use prompts and cues.35

    Outcomes

    The primary outcome was the change in body weight 6 months postintervention, while secondary outcomes were changes in body weight 3 months postintervention, metabolic profiles (including hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], fasting blood glucose [FBG], blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density and high-density lipoprotein levels), creatinine levels, and dietary intake. In the post hoc analyses, changes in physical activity were included as a secondary outcome, along with changes in HbA1c and FBG levels for the subgroup with suboptimal diabetes control (ie, HbA1c levels ≥8%) and changes in dosages of diabetes medication for the subgroup using diabetes medications.

    During the study visits at the clinic, research staff measured participants’ body weight using a calibrated digital weighing scale (Omron Healthcare) and blood pressure via an automatic blood pressure monitor (Omron Healthcare). Blood samples were obtained after an overnight fast to determine HbA1c, FBG, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density and high-density lipoprotein levels and sent for testing at the National University Hospital Referral Laboratory or National Healthcare Group Diagnostics (both accredited by the College of American Pathologists). Laboratory technicians were masked to group allocation.

    Two-day food diaries were collected at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months to evaluate energy and macronutrient intakes. A registered dietitian analyzed dietary intake using the app’s nutrient analysis platform, which utilizes Singapore Energy and Nutrient Composition of Food, Malaysian Food Composition, and US Department of Agriculture food databases, along with nutritional information from food packaging and nutrient analysis of recipes. Data on participants’ diabetes medications and physical activity were collected at baseline and during outcome visits via survey questions regarding changes in the dosages of diabetes medications and the total time spent exercising per week. Medication changes were made at the discretion of participants’ own physicians, with medication costs derived from the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore Database and the private rates charged by the National University Hospital, Singapore.

    Sample Size

    The sample size was calculated based on the assumption of at least a moderate Cohen effect size of 0.5 for the difference in weight loss between groups at 6 months postrandomization. A minimum sample size of 85 participants per group would provide 90% power at .05 level of significance in 2-sided tests. A total sample size of 190 participants (95 per group) was planned, factoring a 10% attrition rate.

    Statistical Analysis

    All analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 25.0 (IBM Corp). Continuous variables were presented as means with standard deviations, and categorical variables as frequencies and percentages. Parametric tests were used where normality and homogeneity assumptions were satisfied, otherwise Mann-Whitney U tests were performed. Generalized linear mixed model analysis was performed on the change from baseline for each numerical outcome to account for clustering effect of recruitment sources as random effect. Subgroup analysis on participants with suboptimal baseline HbA1c levels (ie, ≥8%) was performed on changes in HbA1c and FBG. Comparison of changes from baseline between control and intervention groups was performed using a paired t test. Type I error for multiple comparisons was adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure with false discovery rate at 0.20. Generalized Poisson mixed-model analysis was performed for changes in medication dosages of subgroup taking diabetes medications, with relative risks presented. Statistical significance was set at 2-sided P < .05. Between-group Cohen d effect sizes were calculated. Multiple imputation methods36 were used to derive missing data points, with 5 imputations performed for each missing value using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method with predictive mean matching for the primary outcome, secondary outcomes, randomization group, and demographic characteristics. Results from 5 imputed data sets were combined.

    Results
    Participants

    A total of 305 participants were screened, with 204 participants enrolled and randomized to the control (105 participants) or intervention (99 participants) groups. Nine participants (4 control and 5 intervention) withdrew from the study (Figure). At baseline, participants had a mean (SD) age of 51.2 (9.7) years, BMI of 30.6 (4.3), and HbA1c levels of 7.4% (1.3); 132 participants were men (64.7%) (Table 1). Baseline characteristics were similar between study groups, except for a significantly higher diastolic blood pressure in the control group.

    Participants’ data were analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis. Complete outcome data were available for 94.6% of all participants at 6 months as detailed in eTables 1 to 3 in Supplement 1. The Little test showed that the data were consistent with the assumption that they were missing completely at random (P = .08).

    Body Weight

    Table 2 shows changes in weight and metabolic parameters between groups. At 6 months, participants in the intervention group achieved significantly greater reduction in body weight compared with the control group (mean [SD] weight change, −3.6 [4.7] kg vs −1.2 [3.6] kg; P < .001). Between group difference in weight loss showed a moderate Cohen effect size of 0.57. This corresponded to a significantly greater percentage of weight loss in the intervention group compared with the control group (−4.3% [5.4] vs −1.4% [4.2]; P < .001)

    Metabolic Outcomes

    Mean (SD) HbA1c levels improved by 0.7% (1.2) (to convert to proportion of total hemoglobin, multiply by 0.01) and 0.3% (1.0) in the intervention and control groups, respectively, at 3 months and 6 months. Mean fasting blood glucose improved by 14.4 (37.8) mg/dL (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555) and 1.8 (25.2) mg/dL in the intervention and control groups respectively (Table 2). Post hoc analysis of the HbA1c subgroup (55 participants) revealed greater improvements in HbA1c in the intervention group among patients with baseline HbA1c levels of 8% or higher (mean [SD] change, −1.8% [1.4] vs −1.0% [1.4]; P = .02) (Table 3). Between-group differences in blood pressure and lipids were not observed at 6 months.

    Dietary Intake and Physical Activity

    At 6 months, the app intervention led to reductions in total energy, carbohydrate, sugar, total fat, and saturated fat intake, along with an increase in physical activity. There were statistically significant between-group differences for all (eg, mean difference in physical activity: 62.4 min/wk; 95% CI, 16.1-108.6 min/wk; P = .009) (Table 2).

    Diabetes Medications

    In the post hoc analysis of the subgroup taking diabetes medications, a significantly greater proportion of participants in the intervention group were found to have their diabetes medications reduced compared with participants in the control group (17 participants [23.3%] vs 4 participants [5.4%]), corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of 3.5 for reduction in diabetes medications (95% CI, 1.2-10.7; P = .03) (eTable 3 in Supplement 1). Conversely, a greater proportion of participants in the control group had their medications increased compared with the intervention group (18 [24.3%] vs 5 [6.8%]; RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9; P = .04). These overall changes in medications led to a reduction in annual costs of diabetes medications in the intervention group, but an increase in the control group, with statistical significance between-group differences (mean difference in cost at 6 mo, −$145.30; 95% CI, −$252.40 to −$38.30; P = .01) (Table 2).

    Adverse Events

    Mild hypoglycemia was reported by 3 participants in the intervention group, with none requiring hospitalization. No serious adverse events were reported.

    App Usage

    App usage was defined as days when participants used at least 1 app feature. Overall, 61 of 99 (62%) of the intervention participants used the app at least 75% of the days during the 6-month intervention. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) days of app utilization for the 1 to 3–month, 4 to 6–month, and 6-month periods were 87 (69-91), 76 (36-90), and 161 (104-180) days, respectively. Median (IQR) days when participants communicated with a dietitian via the app were 16 (10-25), 6 (1-12), and 23 (11-36) during 1 to 3–month, 4 to 6–month, and 6-month periods, respectively.

    Discussion

    The D’LITE study demonstrated that a culturally contextualized smartphone-based lifestyle intervention is capable of achieving meaningful weight reductions among Asian adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity who are not receiving insulin. In addition, the app intervention led to significant glycemic improvements, particularly among individuals with suboptimal diabetes control, while reducing the dosages and costs of diabetes medications. As there was a higher proportion of men than women, the weight improvement seen may be attenuated compared with other studies37 which tend to include predominantly women. There is also a 2015 systematic review38 demonstrating that men tend to lose more weight.

    Weight loss from the app intervention in this study was similar to that achieved with previous face-to-face lifestyle interventions in individuals with diabetes, despite reduced face-to-face interactions.5,37,39 Typically, lifestyle intervention studies involve 3 to 12 visits in the initial 3 to 6 months, with a total duration of 2 to 16 hours.5,40 Because the ease of communication in the app interface allows an increased frequency of touch points between health care professionals and users to facilitate the provision of timely advice at the point of decision-making, it is able to mitigate the potential effects of reduced face-to-face interactions, leading to comparable outcomes.

    With the present weight loss results being sustained from 3 to 6 months in spite of reduced interactions between health care professionals and users, it is plausible that the inclusion of self-management app features such as self-monitoring, automated feedback, prompts, and educational videos facilitated self-empowerment to reduce the reliance on health care professionals over time, which may potentially translate to manpower cost savings.

    In parallel with the 4.3% weight loss achieved by the intervention group at 6 months, which meets the minimal 3% recommended for insulin resistance improvements,8,9 we found improvements in HbA1c and FBG of similar magnitude to those achieved through face-to-face lifestyle interventions.5,39,41,42 Importantly, the present intervention produced a more pronounced HbA1c improvement among those with suboptimal glycemic control, an effect greater than that achieved with most oral glucose-lowering agents.43 This would have translated to significant long-term protection against microvascular and macrovascular complications,44,45 suggesting that greater effort should be put in place to optimize lifestyle rather than adding on medications.

    We also found that HbA1c reduction was achieved despite reductions in diabetes medications in the intervention group, agreeing with results from medical nutrition therapy interventions in previous studies.46-49 Individuals with diabetes incur a notably higher health care expenditure compared with individuals without diabetes.50 In tandem with the reduction in diabetes medications, the app-led lifestyle intervention has the potential to reduce pill burdens, translating to lower medication costs while potentially lowering exposure to medication-associated adverse events.

    Previous RCTs on smartphone-based interventions among Asian adults with type 2 diabetes have shown significantly greater improvements in HbA1c levels in intervention groups compared with control groups following intervention periods of 3 to 12 months, but not for weight.24-28 In the present study, the phone app and in-app coaching helped participants achieve comparable glycemic improvements while concomitantly improving weight. The inclusion of features within the app, such as a weight tracking function; automated evaluation of calorie intake; alerts on foods logged that are high in fat, sugar, and sodium; and provision of healthier food alternatives may have accounted for the differences observed.

    We also observed that in the intervention group, weight and glycemic improvements were in line with the adoption of a healthier lifestyle.51 There were greater reductions in intake of total energy, specifically from carbohydrate, sugar, fat and saturated fat in the app group, and a concomitant increase in physical activity.

    One of our study’s strengths lay in it being a stratified RCT, which ensured similar baseline characteristics between groups. The use of intention-to-treat analysis accounted for all patients enrolled in the study, thus minimizing type I error and allowing for generalizability. The multicenter approach for recruitment enabled a more representative sample of the population. The attrition rate of 5% is relatively low compared with dietetics intervention studies conducted mainly in outpatient clinics15 and might be attributable to the ease and convenience of an app-based intervention, as it does away with both traveling time or the need to plan around a scheduled session. In addition, the use of multiple imputation method to account for missing values in this study reduced bias due to selective attrition.

    Limitations

    This study has several limitations. Because of the varying effects of different antidepressants on weight, participants with depression were excluded from the study, and hence the sample might not be fully representative of the target population. We had selected smartphone users who were literate in English, thus potentially introducing selection bias, and which may have limited the generalizability of the study. Nonetheless, smartphone ownership and usage is on the rise globally, including in Singapore, where 92% of Singapore residents reported recent smartphone usage.52,53 Lifestyle intervention using an app with instant feedback and remote dietitian support could potentially serve the wider population in near future. This is especially significant in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for communities where medical services may not be easily accessible.

    Results for the outcome on physical activity have to be interpreted with caution because this study used self-reporting and lacked a validated measure. We also did not compare the relative contributions of different app components with weight and glycemic improvements, which may have helped to map the specific app features to outcomes. Furthermore, the long-term lifestyle and behavioral changes after the intervention period are still ongoing at the time of this writing and will be presented in a separate article.

    Conclusions

    This study found that a culturally contextualized smartphone-based lifestyle intervention using a phone app with in-app coaching was capable of achieving significant improvements in weight and multiple metabolic profiles within 3 months of intervention that were sustainable at 6 months of intervention. Participants in the app intervention had also adopted healthier dietary and exercise habits. Thus, apps may offer a platform for the delivery of lifestyle interventions to benefit individuals with diabetes. Future research can investigate the specific combination of app features that are most likely to achieve successful outcomes, as well as the effectiveness of such apps in other Asian populations.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: April 7, 2021.

    Published: June 3, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12417

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Lim SL et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Su Lin Lim, PhD, Department of Dietetics, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Main Bldg, Level 1, Singapore 119074 (su_lin_lim@nuhs.edu.sg).

    Author Contributions: Dr Lim had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Lim, Thiagarajah.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Lim, Ong, Johal, Han, Yap, Chan, Chooi, Zhang, Chandra, Khoo.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Lim, Ong, Johal, Han, Yap, Chooi, Thiagarajah, Khoo.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Lim, Johal, Han, Chan, Zhang, Chandra, Khoo.

    Statistical analysis: Lim, Han, Yap, Chan, Chooi, Khoo.

    Obtained funding: Lim.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Lim, Ong, Johal, Han, Chooi, Zhang, Chandra.

    Supervision: Lim, Ong, Thiagarajah.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lim reported uncompensated consulting work for HeartVoice, the developer of the nBuddy Diabetes app. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This study is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Health Services Research Grant program (No. NMRC/HSRG/0063/2016).

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Meeting Presentation: The preliminary results of this study were presented in an abstract form at the 17th World Congress Insulin Resistance Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease; December 5-7, 2019; Los Angeles, California.

    Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

    Additional Contributions: The authors would like to thank all the D’LITE study participants for their participation, Richard Hui, MMed, and Steven Chong, GDFM, MBBS, (National University Polyclinics) for supervising the study sites, and Genevieve Yeo, Diploma in Food Science and Nutrition (National University Hospital), for serving as a research coordinator, a position salaried under the research grant. We would also like to thank Lee Kian Ng, MBA, for her assistance in providing laboratory and phlebotomy services, Tuck Seng Wu, MSc (National University Hospital), for his help in data analysis of medications usage, and Ms Li Wang, BSc (National University Polyclinics), for her help in the recruitment of participants for this study.

    References
    1.
    Nathan  DM, Buse  JB, Davidson  MB,  et al; American Diabetes Association; European Association for Study of Diabetes.  Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy.   Diabetes Care. 2009;32(1):193-203. doi:10.2337/dc08-9025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Magkos  F, Yannakoulia  M, Chan  JL, Mantzoros  CS.  Management of the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes through lifestyle modification.   Annu Rev Nutr. 2009;29:223-256. doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-080508-141200PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    American Diabetes Association.  Standards of medical care in diabetes—2010.   Diabetes Care. 2010;33(suppl 1):S11-S61. doi:10.2337/dc10-S011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Pastors  JG, Franz  MJ, Warshaw  H, Daly  A, Arnold  MS.  How effective is medical nutrition therapy in diabetes care?   J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(7):827-831. doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(03)00466-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Franz  MJ, MacLeod  J, Evert  A,  et al.  Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics nutrition practice guideline for type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults: systematic review of evidence for medical nutrition therapy effectiveness and recommendations for integration into the nutrition care process.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(10):1659-1679. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2017.03.022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Morris  SF, Wylie-Rosett  J.  Medical nutrition therapy: a key to diabetes management and prevention.   Clinical Diabetes. 2010;28(1):12-18. doi:10.2337/diaclin.28.1.12Google ScholarCrossref
    7.
    American Diabetes Association.  Nutrition recommendations and interventions for diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association.  2008;31(suppl 1):S61-S78. doi:10.2337/dc08-S061
    8.
    American Diabetes Association.  Obesity management for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2020.   Diabetes Care. 2020;43(suppl 1):S89-S97. doi:10.2337/dc20-S008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Ryan  DH, Yockey  SR.  Weight loss and improvement in comorbidity: differences at 5%, 10%, 15%, and over.   Curr Obes Rep. 2017;6(2):187-194. doi:10.1007/s13679-017-0262-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Ramachandran  A, Chamukuttan  S, Shetty  SA, Arun  N, Susairaj  P.  Obesity in Asia—is it different from rest of the world?   Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012;28(s2)(suppl 2):47-51. doi:10.1002/dmrr.2353PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Abarca-Gómez  L, Abdeen  ZA, Hamid  ZA,  et al; NCD Risk Factor Collaboration.  Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults.   The Lancet. 2017;390(10113):2627-2642. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32129-3Google ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Pagoto  S.  The current state of lifestyle intervention implementation research: where do we go next?   Transl Behav Med. 2011;1(3):401-405. doi:10.1007/s13142-011-0071-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Rushing  J, Wing  R, Wadden  TA,  et al; Look AHEAD Research Group.  Cost of intervention delivery in a lifestyle weight loss trial in type 2 diabetes: results from the Look AHEAD clinical trial.   Obes Sci Pract. 2017;3(1):15-24. doi:10.1002/osp4.92PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Moroshko  I, Brennan  L, O’Brien  P.  Predictors of dropout in weight loss interventions: a systematic review of the literature.   Obes Rev. 2011;12(11):912-934. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00915.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Mitchell  LJ, Ball  LE, Ross  LJ, Barnes  KA, Williams  LT.  Effectiveness of dietetic consultations in primary health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017;117(12):1941-1962. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2017.06.364PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Fakih El Khoury  C, Karavetian  M, Halfens  RJG, Crutzen  R, Khoja  L, Schols  JMGA.  The effects of dietary mobile apps on nutritional outcomes in adults with chronic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019;119(4):626-651. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2018.11.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Hou  C, Carter  B, Hewitt  J, Francisa  T, Mayor  S.  Do mobile phone applications improve glycemic control (HbA1c) in the self-management of diabetes? a systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE of 14 randomized trials.   Diabetes Care. 2016;39(11):2089-2095. doi:10.2337/dc16-0346PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Cui  M, Wu  X, Mao  J, Wang  X, Nie  M.  T2DM self-management via smartphone applications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0166718. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166718PubMedGoogle Scholar
    19.
    Klasnja  P, Pratt  W.  Healthcare in the pocket: mapping the space of mobile-phone health interventions.   J Biomed Inform. 2012;45(1):184-198. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2011.08.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Chen  J, Gemming  L, Hanning  R, Allman-Farinelli  M.  Smartphone apps and the nutrition care process: current perspectives and future considerations.   Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(4):750-757. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2017.11.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Napier  AD, Ancarno  C, Butler  B,  et al.  Culture and health.   Lancet. 2014;384(9954):1607-1639. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61603-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Asad  AL, Kay  T.  Toward a multidimensional understanding of culture for health interventions.   Soc Sci Med. 2015;144:79-87. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Castro  FG, Barrera  M  Jr, Holleran Steiker  LK.  Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions.   Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010;6(1):213-239. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-033109-132032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Dong  Y, Wang  P, Dai  Z,  et al.  Increased self-care activities and glycemic control rate in relation to health education via WeChat among diabetes patients: a randomized clinical trial.   Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(50):e13632. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000013632PubMedGoogle Scholar
    25.
    Kim  EK, Kwak  SH, Jung  HS,  et al.  The effect of a smartphone-based, patient-centered diabetes care system in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial for 24 weeks.   Diabetes Care. 2019;42(1):3-9. doi:10.2337/dc17-2197PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Yang  Y, Lee  EY, Kim  HS, Lee  SH, Yoon  KH, Cho  JH.  Effect of a mobile phone-based glucose-monitoring and feedback system for type 2 diabetes management in multiple primary care clinic settings: cluster randomized controlled trial.   JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(2):e16266. doi:10.2196/16266PubMedGoogle Scholar
    27.
    Zhang  L, He  X, Shen  Y,  et al.  Effectiveness of smartphone app-based interactive management on glycemic control in Chinese patients with poorly controlled diabetes: randomized controlled trial.   J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(12):e15401. doi:10.2196/15401PubMedGoogle Scholar
    28.
    Zhou  W, Chen  M, Yuan  J, Sun  Y.  Welltang—a smart phone-based diabetes management application—improves blood glucose control in Chinese people with diabetes.   Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016;116:105-110. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2016.03.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Czajkowski  SM, Powell  LH, Adler  N,  et al.  From ideas to efficacy: the ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases.   Health Psychol. 2015;34(10):971-982. doi:10.1037/hea0000161PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Mohr  DC, Cuijpers  P, Lehman  K.  Supportive accountability: a model for providing human support to enhance adherence to eHealth interventions.   J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e30. doi:10.2196/jmir.1602PubMedGoogle Scholar
    31.
    Butryn  ML, Webb  V, Wadden  TA.  Behavioral treatment of obesity.   Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2011;34(4):841-859. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2011.08.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Lim  SL, Johal  J, Ong  KW,  et al.  Lifestyle intervention enabled by mobile technology on weight loss in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: randomized controlled trial.   JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(4):e14802. doi:10.2196/14802PubMedGoogle Scholar
    33.
    World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.   JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053Google ScholarCrossref
    34.
    American Diabetes Association.  Summary of revisions: standards of medical care in diabetes–2019.   Diabetes Care. 2019;42(suppl 1):S4-S6. doi:10.2337/dc19-Srev01PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Rao  G, Burke  LE, Spring  BJ,  et al; American Heart Association Obesity Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; Stroke Council.  New and emerging weight management strategies for busy ambulatory settings: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association endorsed by the Society of Behavioral Medicine.   Circulation. 2011;124(10):1182-1203. doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e31822b9543PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Lane  P.  Handling drop-out in longitudinal clinical trials: a comparison of the LOCF and MMRM approaches.   Pharm Stat. 2008;7(2):93-106. doi:10.1002/pst.267PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Terranova  CO, Brakenridge  CL, Lawler  SP, Eakin  EG, Reeves  MM.  Effectiveness of lifestyle-based weight loss interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015;17(4):371-378. doi:10.1111/dom.12430PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Williams  RL, Wood  LG, Collins  CE, Callister  R.  Effectiveness of weight loss interventions—is there a difference between men and women: a systematic review.   Obes Rev. 2015;16(2):171-186. doi:10.1111/obr.12241PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Razaz  JM, Rahmani  J, Varkaneh  HK, Thompson  J, Clark  C, Abdulazeem  HM.  The health effects of medical nutrition therapy by dietitians in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Prim Care Diabetes. 2019;13(5):399-408. doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2019.05.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Ma  J, Yank  V, Xiao  L,  et al.  Translating the Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle intervention for weight loss into primary care: a randomized trial.   JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(2):113-121. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.987PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Chen  L, Pei  J-H, Kuang  J,  et al.  Effect of lifestyle intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.   Metabolism. 2015;64(2):338-347. doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2014.10.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Wing  RR; Look AHEAD Research Group.  Long-term effects of a lifestyle intervention on weight and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: four-year results of the Look AHEAD trial.   Arch Internl Med. 2010;170(17):1566-1575. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.334Google Scholar
    43.
    Sherifali  D, Nerenberg  K, Pullenayegum  E, Cheng  JE, Gerstein  HC.  The effect of oral antidiabetic agents on A1C levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Diabetes Care. 2010;33(8):1859-1864. doi:10.2337/dc09-1727PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Stratton  IM, Adler  AI, Neil  HAW,  et al.  Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study.   BMJ. 2000;321(7258):405-412. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    American Diabetes Association.  Implications of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study.   Diabetes Care. 2002;25(suppl 1):s28-s32. doi:10.2337/diacare.25.2007.S28PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Coppell  KJ, Kataoka  M, Williams  SM, Chisholm  AW, Vorgers  SM, Mann  JI.  Nutritional intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes who are hyperglycaemic despite optimised drug treatment—Lifestyle Over and Above Drugs in Diabetes (LOADD) study: randomised controlled trial.   BMJ. 2010;341:c3337. doi:10.1136/bmj.c3337PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Wolf  AM, Conaway  MR, Crowther  JQ,  et al; Improving Control with Activity and Nutrition (ICAN) Study.  Translating lifestyle intervention to practice in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: Improving Control with Activity and Nutrition (ICAN) study.   Diabetes Care. 2004;27(7):1570-1576. doi:10.2337/diacare.27.7.1570PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Goldhaber-Fiebert  JD, Goldhaber-Fiebert  SN, Tristán  ML, Nathan  DM.  Randomized controlled community-based nutrition and exercise intervention improves glycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetic patients in rural Costa Rica.   Diabetes Care. 2003;26(1):24-29. doi:10.2337/diacare.26.1.24PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Andrews  RC, Cooper  AR, Montgomery  AA,  et al.  Diet or diet plus physical activity versus usual care in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: the Early ACTID randomised controlled trial.   Lancet. 2011;378(9786):129-139. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60442-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    American Diabetes Association.  Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2017.   Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):917-928. doi:10.2337/dci18-0007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Pastors  JG, Warshaw  H, Daly  A, Franz  M, Kulkarni  K.  The evidence for the effectiveness of medical nutrition therapy in diabetes management.   Diabetes Care. 2002;25(3):608-613. doi:10.2337/diacare.25.3.608PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    GSM Association. The mobile economy Asia Pacific 2020. Published 2020. Accessed April 21, 2021. https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSMA_MobileEconomy_2020_AsiaPacific.pdf
    53.
    Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore. Annual survey on Infocomm usage in households and by individuals for 2018. Published 2018. Accessed November 5, 2020. https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/Imda/Files/Industry-Development/Fact-and-Figures/Infocomm-usage-HI/Annual-Survey-on-Infocomm-Usage-by-Households-and-Individuals-Report-2018.pdf
    ×