ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2025
Theory-based process evaluation of a non-randomised single-arm pilot study investigating time-restricted eating in the treatment of type 2 diabetes-the RESET2 pilot study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05375695 (Feasibility of Time-Restricted Eating in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes - the RESET2 Pilot Study), which is not on this 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.
Feasibility of Time-Restricted Eating in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes - the RESET2 Pilot Study
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study describes a 12-week non-randomised single-arm pilot study, which was conducted to inform the design of a 1-year randomised controlled trial (RCT) on time-restricted eating (TRE) in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Core intervention components were developed to operationalize findings of a needs assessment study and the resulting initial program theory suggesting causal associations influencing TRE adherence. This study assessed the implementation and acceptance of core intervention components and activities, and participant experiences with TRE, and based on the findings, the initial program theory was refined.
methodsIn this non-randomised single-arm study, nineteen individuals with type 2 diabetes completed 8 weeks of TRE with a 10-h eating window, followed by 4 weeks of individualised TRE (core component 1). Participants had two 1-h conversations with healthcare professionals (HCPs) at baseline and after 8 weeks to support TRE initiation (core component 2) and maintenance (core component 3). The process evaluation was conducted using a concurrent mixed methods design with emphasis on qualitative insights. Delivery and implementation of intervention activities, including visits, measurements, conversations, and phone calls, as well as the two-phase design, were evaluated. The conversations were audio-recorded to investigate the extent to which they were conducted as intended. Interviews (by a researcher) at baseline, 8, and 12 weeks explored participants' experiences, support received, and TRE implementation in daily life. The interviews were audio-recorded. A deductive qualitative content analysis approach was applied.
resultsIntervention activities were delivered with high degree of consistency, and the two-phase design (strict respectively individualised TRE) was effectively implemented. Participants found the TRE intervention highly acceptable, appreciating the relevant information, well-organised trial visits, supportive HCPs, and encouraging conversations. Analysis of participants' experiences of implementation of TRE generated themes related to routines and habits, support from relatives, social life, and mental and physical challenges. Intervention components such as conversations and individual support and adjustment options were found to facilitate TRE initiation and maintenance. The initial program theory was refined in terms of how the intervention activities supported participants differently and how various contextual factors influenced their experiences and adherence to TRE.
conclusionsInsights from participants' experiences with intervention activities and TRE performance in everyday life provided a nuanced understanding of what works, for whom, how, why, and under which circumstances in terms of TRE adherence. These findings will help tailor the following RCT intervention to the target population.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT05375695. Registered 27 March, 2022: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05375695?term=NCT05375695&rank=1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.