This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a highly prevalent chronic metabolic disease characterized by hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risks. Without proper treatment, T2DM can lead to long-term complications. Diabetes self-management is recognized as the cornerstone of overall diabetes management. Web-based self-management programs for T2DM patients can help to successfully improve patient health behaviors and health-related outcomes. Theories can help to specify key determinants of the target behaviors and behavior change strategies required to arrive at the desired health outcomes, which can then be translated into specific behavioral techniques or strategies that patients can learn to apply in their daily life. From previous reviews of a wide range of online diabetes self-management tools and programs, it appears that it is still unclear which behavioral change techniques (BCTs) are primarily used and are most effective when it comes to improving diabetes self-management behaviors and related health outcomes.
We set out to identify which BCTs are being applied in online self-management programs for T2DM and whether there is indication of their effectiveness in relation to predefined health outcomes.
Articles were systematically searched and screened on the mentioned use of 40 BCTs, which were then linked to reported statistically significant improvements in study outcomes.
We found 13 randomized controlled trials reporting on 8 online self-management interventions for T2DM. The BCTs used were feedback on performance, providing information on consequences of behavior, barrier identification/problem solving, and self-monitoring of behavior. These BCTs were also linked to positive outcomes for health behavior change, psychological well-being, or clinical parameters.
A relatively small number of theory-based online self-management support programs for T2DM have been reported using only a select number of BCTs. The development of future online self-management interventions should be based on the use of theories and BCTs and should be reported accurately.
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by insulin resistance and beta cell impairment [
Self-management enables patients to take control of their chronic disease, such as the treatment and the physical and psychological symptoms, by making their own decisions and performing self-chosen actions aimed at improving their health [
To promote daily self-management for T2DM patients, educational and behavioral support programs have been developed and shown to be effective for behavioral and medical outcomes [
It is recognized that theory-based self-management programs are more effective than non-theory-based programs; indeed, most self-management programs are informed by theory or elements of a behavior change model [
On July 24, 2012, we searched within PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycInfo, and Cinahl. Because of the size of the search term used, the search terms can be found in
The retrieved articles were screened using the following inclusion criteria: written in English, published after 1994 (the introduction of the Internet), about T2DM, included patients aged 18 years or older, and concerned Web-based (online) self-management programs for which participants had to use the Internet to connect to the intervention. We only included RCTs to establish whether the BCTs used in the programs were associated with significant improvements. We defined self-management programs as systematic approaches to assist patients in their diabetes self-care, and where in some way or other patients were actively engaged and prompted to make decisions for themselves and have responsibility over their own actions [
Two researchers (MvV, WHJJC) independently reviewed the articles and extracted data on demographics, care setting, type of study, duration, measurements, nature of the intervention and control condition, applied inclusion criteria, used theory or model, BCTs, target behavior(s), outcome parameters, results, limits, and adherence. The risk of bias was assessed for all included studies using a quality assessment tool as proposed by van Tulder et al [
Flowchart screening process of articles included in review.
Characteristics of the studies.
Study | Study description | Participants | |||||||||
|
Qualitya | Country | n | Groups, n | Measurements, n | Settingb | Inclusion criteriac | Duration (months) | Ethnicity | Female, % | Age, mean |
Glasgow et al (2012) [ |
83% | US | 463 | 3 | 3 | 1 | T2DM, age 25-75, BMI >25 kg/m2, at least 1 other risk factor for heart disease, access to telephone and Internet, fluent in English or Spanish, ability to perform mild to moderate exercise | 12 | White, Latino | 50 | 58.4 |
Van Bastelaar et al (2011) [ |
83% | NL | 255 | 2 | 3 | 1+2 | CESD>16, email address, access to Internet, no history of suicide, suicidal ideation, bipolar, psychotic, pregnancy, recent loss of significant other | 3 | White | 61 | 50.0 |
Bond et al (2010) [ |
72% | US | 62 | 2 | 2 | 1+2 | T1DM or T2DM for at least 1 y, age ≥60, living independently, fluent in English | 6 | White | 45 | 67.2 |
Lorig et al (2010) [ |
78% | US | 761 | 3 | 3 | 1+2 | T2DM, age ≥18, not pregnant or in care for cancer, access to the Internet | 18 | White, Native Indian, Alaska Native | 73 | 54.3 |
Glasgow et al (2010) [ |
78% | US | 463 | 3 | 2 | 1 | T2DM, age 25-75,BMI>25 kg/m2, at least 1 other risk factor for heart disease, access to telephone and Internet, fluent in English or Spanish, ability to perform mild to moderate exercise | 4 | White | 50 | 58.4 |
Wangberg et al (2008) [ |
67% | NO | 61 | 2 | 2 | 1+2 | T1DM or T2DM, access to Internet (no exclusion criteria) | 1 | White | 57 | 40.1 |
Bond et al (2007) [ |
78% | US | 62 | 2 | 2 | 1+2 | T1DM or T2DM for ≥1 y, age ≥60, living independently, fluent in English | 6 | White | 45 | 67.2 |
Bond et al (2006) [ |
50% | US | 15 | 2 | 2 | 1+2 | T1DM or T2DM for ≥1 y, age ≥60, living independently, fluent in English | 6 | White | — | — |
Kim et al (2006) [ |
72% | KR | 73 | 3 | 2 | 2 | T2DM <20 y, age ≥20, FBS <240 mg/dL and/or HbA1c less than 10.0%, no chronic complications, no evidence of heart disease, musculoskeletal disorders, or other disabling diseases that could restrict physical activity, no insulin administration | 3 | Asian | 47 | 55.1 |
Lorig et al (2006) [ |
78% | US | 958 | 2 | 3 | 1+2 | Age ≥18, T2DM or COPD or CHF, no active treatment of cancer for 1 y, not participated in self-management program, access to Internet (email), agree to 1-2 h per week of log-on time over at least 3 sessions/w for 6 w, able to complete the online questionnaire | 12 | White | 71 | 57.5 |
Glasgow et al (2003) [ |
67% | US | 320 | 3 | 2 | 1 | T2DM (Welborn criteria), age 40-75, have a telephone, fluent in English, live in local area and planning to remain in the area for year of study | 10 | White | 53 | 59.0 |
Barrera et al (2002) [ |
72% | US | 160 | 4 | 1 | 1 | T2DM (Welborn criteria), age 40-75, have a telephone, fluent in English, live in local area and planning to remain in the area for year of study | 3 | White | 53 | 59.0 |
McKay et al (2002) [ |
72% | US | 160 | 4 | 2 | 1 | T2DM (Welborn criteria), age: 40-75, have a telephone, fluent in English, live in local area and planning to remain in the area for year of study | 3 | White | 53 | 59.3 |
aAssessment of study quality as proposed by van Tulder et al [
b1=Primary care setting; 2=secondary care setting.
cCESD: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; FBS: fasting blood sugar; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CHF: congestive heart failure; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; T1DM: type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Results of the studies.
Study | Resultsa | Completion rate |
Power calculation |
Glasgow et al (2012) [ |
Significant improvements in diet (fat intake), physical activity, and biological outcomes in both IGs vs baseline, and significant reduction in distress for both groups vs CG | 77% | Yes |
Van Bastelaar et al (2011) [ |
Significant improvements in depression and diabetes distress for IG | 68% | Yes |
Bond et al (2010) [ |
Significant improvements in quality of life, depression, social support, and self-efficacy for IG | 100% | Yes |
Lorig et al (2010) [ |
Significant improvements in HbA1c, patient activation, and self-efficacy for IGs vs CG | 82% | Yes |
Glasgow et al (2010) [ |
Significant improvements in diet (fat intake), physical activity, and biological outcomes in both IGs vs baseline, and significant reduction in distress for both groups vs CG | 83% | Yes |
Wangberg et al (2008) [ |
Significant improvements in self-care for high-efficacy group | 45% | Yes (after) |
Bond et al (2007) [ |
Significant improvements in HbA1c, weight, and HDL cholesterol for IG vs CG | 100% | Yes |
Bond et al (2006) [ |
Significant improvements in HbA1c and high comorbidities for IG vs CG | — | Yes |
Kim et al (2006) [ |
Significant improvements in physical activity, FBS and HbA1c for both IGs vs CG | 100% | Yes |
Lorig et al (2006) [ |
Significant improvements in exercise, health distress, fatigue, pain, shortness of breath, reduction in disability for IG | 82% | No |
Glasgow et al (2003) [ |
Significant improvements in psychosocial and some biological outcomes for all IGs vs CG | 82% | No |
Barrera et al (2002) [ |
Significant improvements in diabetes-specific support measure and a general support scale for all IGs vs CG | 79% | No |
McKay et al (2002) [ |
Significant improvements in diet for all IGs vs CG, but no significant differences between conditions | 84% | No |
aIG: intervention group; CG: control group; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; FBS: fasting blood sugar; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin.
Characteristics of interventions and control conditions of the intervention programs.
Study | Intervention condition 1 | Intervention condition 2 | Intervention condition 3 | Control condition |
Glasgow et al (2012), Glasgow et al (2010) [ |
Self-administered, Web-based diabetes self-management program with goal setting and action planning for medication adherence, physical activity, and diet; self-monitoring and feedback on progress, monitoring of blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol results, a moderated forum with community resources, and barrier identification | Self-administered, Web-based diabetes self-management program with goal setting and action planning on medication adherence, physical activity, and diet; self-monitoring and feedback on progress, monitoring of blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol results; a moderated forum with community resources, and barrier identification; 2 follow-up calls from interventionist and invitation to attend 3 group sessions | — | Enhanced usual care (computer-based health risk appraisal feedback and recommended preventive care behaviors) |
van Bastelaar et al (2011) [ |
Eight online lessons with cognitive behavioral therapy, coaching feedback, and mood diary | — | — | Waitlist control |
Bond et al (2010), Bond et al (2007), Bond et al (2006) [ |
Online library, a personal electronic log of self-management activities, advice and counseling from a nurse via email, and weekly online problem-solving group discussions | — | — | Usual care |
Lorig et al (2010) [ |
Web-based diabetes self-management program, 6 weekly sessions, bulletin board feedback on action planning, problem solving, difficult emotions, and celebrations | Web-based diabetes self-management program, 6 weekly sessions, bulletin board feedback on action planning, problem solving, difficult emotions and celebrations,. listserve discussion group | — | Usual care |
Wangberg et al (2008) [ |
Intervention tailored to high self-efficacy aimed at self-care: blood glucose monitoring, diet and physical activity, included T2DM information, barrier identification, quizzes with feedback, videos of peers, video lectures of professionals | Intervention tailored to low self-efficacy, aimed at self-care blood glucose monitoring, diet, and physical activity, including T2DM information, barrier identification, quizzes with feedback, videos of peers, video lectures of professionals | — | Usual care |
Kim et al (2006) [ |
Web-based tailored physical activity counseling, based on participants’ assessed motivational stage | Printed-material physical activity intervention including the 5 stages of motivation change | — | Usual care |
Lorig et al (2006) [ |
Web-based bulletin board discussion groups and a book, program contains individual exercise programs, emotion management, overview of medications, communication, healthy eating, fatigue management, action planning, feedback, and problem solving | — | — | Usual care |
Glasgow et al (2003), Barrera et al (2002), McKay et al (2002) [ |
Goal setting with personalized feedback, barrier identification and problem solving, personalized self-management coach condition | Goal setting with personalized feedback, barrier identification and problem solving, peer support condition | Combined condition | Only diabetes information online condition |
Characteristics of the intervention programs.
Study | Theory used | BCTsa | Health care professional included | Evolved or new intervention | Standalone or embedded in care |
Glasgow et al (2012), Glasgow et al (2010) [ |
Social cognitive theory, social-ecological model | 1,2,4,5,7-10,13,16,17,19,29,35 | No | New | Standalone |
van Bastelaar et al (2011) [ |
Cognitive behavioral therapy | 1,2,4,8,12,13,15,16,19,21,22,24, 26,27,29,35,36,39,40 | No | Evolved | Standalone |
Bond et al (2010), Bond et al (2007), Bond et al (2006) [ |
— | 1,2,5,6,8,10,11,16,17,19,21,23, 26,28,30,36 | No | New | Embedded in care |
Lorig et al (2010) [ |
Self-efficacy theory | 1-3,7,8,10,16,17,19,28,29,36 | No | Evolved | Standalone |
Wangberg et al (2008) [ |
Social cognitive theory | 1,2,8,16,17,19,21,22,26,28 | No | New | Standalone |
Kim et al (2006) [ |
Transtheoretical model | 5,6,7,17,19,20,21 | Yes | Evolved | Embedded in care |
Lorig et al (2006) [ |
Self-efficacy theory, | 1,4,7,8,19,21,22,27,28,29,33,34,36 | No | Evolved | Standalone |
Glasgow et al (2003), Barrera et al (2002), McKay et al (2002) [ |
Self-efficacy theory, social support theory | 1,2,5,8,10,16,17,19,27-29 | Yes | New | Standalone |
aBCT: Behavioral change technique; see
Only 3 studies explicitly mentioned the BCTs applied [
Seven of 13 RCTs reported statistically significant improvements in health behaviors (diet, physical activity/exercise, medication use, smoking) [
The BCTs provide feedback on performance, provide information on consequences of behavior in general, barrier identification/problem solving, prompt self-monitoring of behavioral outcome, provide information on consequences of behavior to the individual, prompt self-monitoring of behavior, and plan social support/social change were all linked with improvements in health behaviors, clinical outcome measures, and psychological outcomes. Additionally, goal setting (behavior) was linked to improvements in clinical outcomes and facilitate social comparison was associated with improvements in psychological outcomes.
Frequencies of behavioral change techniques (BCTs) used in the interventions discussed in the articles (n=8).
# | BCT | n | % |
1 | Provide feedback on performance | 8 | 100 |
2 | Provide information on consequences of behavior in general | 7 | 88 |
3 | Barrier identification/problem solving | 7 | 88 |
4 | Provide information on consequences of behavior to the individual | 6 | 75 |
5 | Prompt self-monitoring of behavior | 6 | 75 |
6 | Prompt self-monitoring of behavioral outcome | 6 | 75 |
7 | Provide instruction on how to perform the behavior | 5 | 63 |
8 | Facilitate social comparison | 5 | 63 |
9 | Plan social support/social change | 5 | 63 |
10 | Goal setting (behavior) | 4 | 50 |
11 | Action planning | 4 | 50 |
12 | Prompt review of behavioral goals | 4 | 50 |
13 | Stress management/emotional control training | 4 | 50 |
14 | Provide normative information about others’ behavior | 3 | 38 |
15 | Model/Demonstrate the behavior | 3 | 38 |
16 | Prompt practice | 3 | 38 |
17 | Use of follow-up prompts | 3 | 38 |
18 | Goal setting (outcome) | 2 | 25 |
19 | Provide rewards contingent on successful behavior | 2 | 25 |
20 | Relapse prevention/coping planning | 2 | 25 |
21 | Provide information about others’ approval | 1 | 13 |
22 | Set graded tasks | 1 | 13 |
23 | Prompt review of outcome goals | 1 | 13 |
24 | Prompt rewards contingent on effort or progress toward behavior | 1 | 13 |
25 | Prompting generalization of a target behavior | 1 | 13 |
26 | Provide information on where and when to perform the behavior | 1 | 13 |
27 | Teach to use prompts/cues | 1 | 13 |
28 | Environmental restructuring | 1 | 13 |
29 | Prompt identification as role model/position advocate | 1 | 13 |
30 | Prompt self-talk | 1 | 13 |
31 | Prompt use of imagery | 1 | 13 |
32 | General communication skills training | 1 | 13 |
33 | Stimulate anticipation of future rewards | 1 | 13 |
34 | Shaping | 0 | 0 |
35 | Prompting focus on past success | 0 | 0 |
36 | Agree behavioral contract | 0 | 0 |
37 | Prompt anticipated regret | 0 | 0 |
38 | Fear arousal | 0 | 0 |
39 | Motivational interviewing | 0 | 0 |
40 | Time management | 0 | 0 |
Frequency of behavioral change techniques (BCTs) per improved study outcome.
BCT | Improved health behavior outcomes (n=7) | Improved clinical outcome measures (n=9) | Improved psychological outcomes (n=9) | Combined average percentage | |||
|
n | % | n | % | n | % | % |
Provide feedback on performance | 7 | 100 | 9 | 100 | 9 | 100 | 100 |
Provide information on consequences of behavior in general | 6 | 86 | 8 | 89 | 9 | 100 | 92 |
Barrier identification/problem solving | 6 | 86 | 8 | 89 | 9 | 100 | 92 |
Prompt self-monitoring of behavioral outcome | 6 | 86 | 8 | 89 | 7 | 78 | 84 |
Provide information on consequences of behavior to the individual | 5 | 71 | 7 | 78 | 8 | 89 | 79 |
Prompt self-monitoring of behavior | 5 | 71 | 7 | 78 | 8 | 89 | 79 |
Plan social support/social change | 5 | 71 | 6 | 67 | 7 | 78 | 72 |
Goal setting (behavior) | 5 | 71 | 7 | 78 | 5 | 56 | 68 |
Prompt review of behavioral goals | 4 | 57 | 7 | 78 | 6 | 67 | 67 |
Facilitate social comparison | 4 | 57 | 6 | 67 | 7 | 78 | 67 |
Action planning | 4 | 57 | 5 | 56 | 3 | 33 | 49 |
Use of follow-up prompts | 3 | 43 | 3 | 33 | 5 | 56 | 44 |
Provide instruction on how to perform the behavior | 3 | 43 | 4 | 44 | 4 | 44 | 44 |
Provide normative information about others’ behavior | 3 | 43 | 3 | 33 | 3 | 33 | 36 |
Stress management/emotional control training | 1 | 14 | 4 | 44 | 4 | 44 | 34 |
Provide rewards contingent on successful behavior | 2 | 29 | 2 | 22 | 2 | 22 | 24 |
Model/Demonstrate the behavior | 2 | 29 | 1 | 11 | 3 | 33 | 24 |
Relapse prevention/coping planning | 2 | 29 | 2 | 22 | 2 | 22 | 24 |
Prompt practice | 1 | 14 | 2 | 22 | 3 | 33 | 23 |
Set graded tasks | 2 | 29 | 2 | 22 | 1 | 11 | 21 |
Goal setting (outcome) | 1 | 14 | 3 | 33 | 1 | 11 | 19 |
Prompt self-talk | 1 | 14 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 11 | 12 |
Prompt use of imagery | 1 | 14. | 1 | 11 | 1 | 11 | 12 |
Prompt review of outcome goals | 0 | 0 | 2 | 22 | 1 | 11 | 11 |
Teach to use prompts/cues | 0 | 0 | 2 | 22 | 1 | 11 | 11 |
Prompt identification as role model/position advocate | 0 | 0 | 2 | 22 | 1 | 11 | 11 |
Provide information on where and when to perform the behavior | 1 | 14 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
Provide information about others’ approval | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 11 | 7 |
Prompt rewards contingent on effort or progress toward behavior | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 3 |
Prompting generalization of a target behavior | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 3 |
Environmental restructuring | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 3 |
General communication skills training | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 3 |
Stimulate anticipation of future rewards | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 3 |
Shaping | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Prompting focus on past success | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Agree behavioral contract | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Prompt anticipated regret | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Fear arousal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Motivational interviewing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Time management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review of BCT use in online diabetes self-management support programs. This information should prove helpful in designing effective online self-management programs for people with T2DM. We identified 13 RCT studies reporting on 8 different online self-management interventions of which 4 pre-existed as group-based programs. Despite the introduction of the Internet in 1994, only a relatively small number of Internet-based self-management interventions for T2DM patients have been studied. We did find 143 studies on various forms of diabetes telehealth and telecare interventions. These studies were excluded from our review because they did not qualify for our definition of self-management programs. Rather these programs stimulated patients to self-monitor their blood glucose, followed by professional feedback and advice. To our knowledge, these programs do not explicitly prompt or support patients to make decisions [
The majority of the included studies that reported on self-management interventions only gave a very basic description of the program and its background. Indeed, it has been noted before that very few studies provide a detailed description of the actual behavioral change intervention [
We observed that 7 of 8 interventions were grounded in a theoretical model, of which one of the used models (TTM), although popular, had limited evidence to support its assumptions [
A number of potentially effective BCTs appear to be used rarely or never in online self-management programs for T2DM despite a good theoretical basis. For instance, only a selection of BCTs derived from social theories, which have a great influence on the self-management of T2DM [
The question then arises why researchers only use a limited number of BCTs and why the chosen BCTs do not always match the theories underlying their intervention. One explanation could be that current online interventions are being copied from published successful online or offline interventions based on a selection of theories and BCTs. By copying existing self-management programs, other relevant theories and BCTs are slowly phased out, narrowing the spectrum of BCTs used. Another obvious reason why certain BCTs are not being used could be that they are too complex or too technologically demanding and, therefore, too costly to integrate into an online environment. For instance, integrating elements of social support into the intervention, such as a forum, email messaging, and chatting functionality, demands large databases and continuous moderator involvement. The maintenance costs of these parts could influence the choice of using these elements. Finally, another reason for underuse of effective BCTs may be that the development of Web-based interventions for T2DM patients are driven primarily by technological advancements rather than being based on a BCT [
The number of articles uncovered in this review was limited to 13 RCTs, covering 8 different diabetes self-management interventions. By only including English studies there is a possibility we limited the amount of available interventions for this review. This, in combination with multiple BCTs used and a variety of outcome measures, made it difficult to allocate an effect size to a specific BCT. Furthermore, because of the fact that self-management interventions contain multiple modules with interactive components, it is difficult to attribute an improvement in a particular study outcome to one specific BCT.
The development of online self-management interventions for T2DM patients brings with it a responsibility of correctly constructing and choosing the working components to specifically target diabetes self-management goals and outcomes. To avoid a further narrowing of applied BCTs, we recommend developers of online self-management programs to not only copy existing successful programs, but also critically review and consider less frequently used BCTs in the context of their theoretical background and the chosen target behaviors.
Ideally, the creation process should follow the order of choosing a theory first, then matching BCTs, and lastly the technology to support the intervention. BCTs can be selected from the taxonomy of 40 BCTs as proposed by Michie et al [
Search terms.
Study quality assessment.
Behavioral change techniques proposed by Michie et al (2011).
Association of American Diabetes Educators
behavioral change technique
control group
intervention group
randomized controlled trial
type 1 diabetes mellitus
type 2 diabetes mellitus
transtheoretical model
None declared.