Telenutrition Education Is Effective for Glycemic Management in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Non-Inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial in Japan
-
Published:2024-01-16
Issue:2
Volume:16
Page:268
-
ISSN:2072-6643
-
Container-title:Nutrients
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nutrients
Author:
Mori Hiroyasu1, Taniguchi Satoshi1, Tamaki Yu2, Tamaki Motoyuki1, Akehi Yuko1, Kuroda Akio1ORCID, Matsuhisa Munehide1
Affiliation:
1. Diabetes Therapeutics and Research Center, Institute of Advanced Medical Sciences, Tokushima University, 3-18-15 Kuramoto-cho, Tokushima 770-8503, Japan 2. Medical IT Center, Tokushima University Hospital, 2-50-1 Kuramoto-cho, Tokushima 770-8503, Japan
Abstract
This study examined the non-inferior efficacy of telenutrition education compared with face-to-face nutrition education in managing glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Participants had T2DM and a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ranged 6.5–9.5%. Thirty participants were randomly assigned to either the telenutrition or face-to-face nutrition education group. During the 32-week intervention period, the participants received four sessions on nutrition education from a registered dietitian at the hospital. The telenutrition group received remote education via a videoconferencing platform. Face-to-face nutrition education was conducted using paper-based instructions. The main outcome measure was the non-inferiority of HbA1c levels in the telenutrition group compared to the face-to-face nutrition group. The non-inferiority of telenutrition education was considered valid if the intergroup difference in the mean values of the change in HbA1c had a bilateral 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit below 0.40%. The intergroup difference in the mean HbA1c change from baseline to the fourth nutrition education session was −0.11 (95% CI −0.54–0.32) for both groups. The upper limit of the bilateral 95% CI was 0.32%, which was below the 0.40% non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority test; p = 0.011). Telenutrition education was not inferior to face-to-face nutrition education for glycemic management in people with T2DM.
Funder
JSPS KAKENHI Technology Regional Innovation Strategy Support Program of the Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science
Reference34 articles.
1. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, Draznin, B., Aroda, V.R., and Bakris, G. (2022). 16. Diabetes care in the hospital: Standards of medical care in diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care, 45, S244–S253. 2. Correia, J.C., Waqas, A., Huat, T.S., Gariani, K., Jornayvaz, F.R., Golay, A., and Pataky, Z. (2022). Effectiveness of therapeutic patient education interventions in obesity and diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrients, 14. 3. Short-term effectiveness of nutrition therapy to treat type 2 diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials;Guilbert;BMJ Open,2022 4. Brunton, C., Arensberg, M.B., Drawert, S., Badaracco, C., Everett, W., and McCauley, S.M. (2021). Perspectives of registered dietitian nutritionists on adoption of telehealth for nutrition care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare, 9. 5. Gnagnarella, P., Ferro, Y., Monge, T., Troiano, E., Montalcini, T., Pujia, A., and Mazza, E. (2022). Telenutrition: Changes in professional practice and in the nutritional assessments of Italian dietitian nutritionists in the COVID-19 era. Nutrients, 14.
|
|