ReviewJMIR diabetes2026
Digital Health Solutions for Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes: Systematic Review of Engagement Barriers, Facilitators, and Outcomes.
Review in JMIR diabetes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development and Formative Usability Evaluation of a Theory-Driven Progressive Web Application for Young Adult Wellness Engagement (MiCARE): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- A theory-driven user-centered design framework for wellness applications targeting young adults: The MiCARE methodology.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital health interventions, including artificial intelligence (AI)-driven solutions, offer promise for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and prediabetes management through enhanced self-management, adherence, and personalization. However, engagement challenges and barriers, particularly among young adults and diverse populations, persist. Existing reviews emphasize clinical outcomes while neglecting engagement factors crucial to intervention success. This review highlights engagement barriers and facilitators, offering insights into improving digital health solutions for diabetes management. Objective: The objective of this systematic literature review is to explore the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes of digital health interventions, focusing on the current state of AI applications while including partial AI and non-AI interventions, for managing and preventing T2DM and prediabetes, to inform the development of user-centered, inclusive digital health interventions for diabetes care. Unlike prior reviews, this review aims to inform the development of user-centered, inclusive digital health interventions for diabetes care, with a focus on engagement across various AI interventions and diverse populations. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and additional sources was conducted for studies published between January 2016 and October 2025. Eligibility criteria included English-language, peer-reviewed studies focused on digital health interventions for adults with T2DM or prediabetes, reporting engagement, barriers, facilitators, or outcomes. Data were synthesized narratively using thematic analysis, guided by self-determination theory and user-centered design. Quality appraisal was conducted using Critical Appraisal Skills Program, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Results: From the 37 studies (14 quantitative, 3 qualitative, 7 mixed-methods, and 13 reviews), interventions comprised 19 AI-driven (eg, chatbots, ML models, and conversational agent or hybrid), 3 partially AI-driven, and 15 non-AI solutions (eg, apps and lifestyle programs), mostly from the USA (n=15). Key barriers to engagement included inadequate personalization (15/37, 41%), environmental constraints (11/37, 11%), cultural and language mismatches (14/37, 38%), and AI-specific concerns (eg, bias and privacy). Facilitators included personalized feedback (19/37, 51%), cultural tailoring (17/37, 46%), user-friendly design, and peer support. AI-driven interventions demonstrated moderate improvements in clinical outcomes (eg, lowering HbA1c, weight loss, and normoglycemia conversion). However, these tools often struggled with keeping users involved and building trust. Non-AI solutions performed similarly but lacked adaptive features. Conclusions: This review offers novel insights by synthesizing engagement barriers and facilitators across AI and non-AI intervention domains, often neglected in previous studies. It highlights the necessity for testing adaptive, culturally tailored, and user-centered AI interventions to address engagement challenges in T2DM and prediabetes management. Integrating personalization, precision, and value-based care can improve outcomes and scalability. The findings guide the creation of inclusive, AI-driven solutions aligned with self-determination theory and user-centered design principles.
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.