The effectiveness of digital health interventions for type 2 diabetes in underserved populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Journal
- Primary care diabetes (Q1)
- Published
- 17 August 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Naseem Eisa, Omar Barood
- PMID
- 42608227
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.pcd.2026.08.003
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Internal Medicine (top studies of the week, 23 August 2026): Digital health interventions for T2DM in underserved groups
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials (1835 participants) evaluated whether digital health interventions (DHIs) improve glycemic control among underserved adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), including racial/ethnic minority, low-income, Medicaid-insured, rural, and low-health-literacy populations. Searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 20, 2025 identified eligible parallel-group randomized controlled trials reporting change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random-effects meta-analysis showed that DHIs produced a modest but statistically significant HbA1c reduction versus control (mean difference, -0.37 %age points; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.30; P < .0001; equivalent to -4.0 mmol/mol). Heterogeneity was moderate-to-substantial (I² = 69.9%). Subgroup analyses suggested directionally similar effects by population group and intervention modality, but interpretation was limited by study-level data and the small number of trials. Funnel-plot inspection and Egger's test (P = .31) did not suggest major small-study effects, although power was limited. Overall certainty for HbA1c was moderate. DHIs may support more equitable diabetes care when implemented with cultural tailoring, language access, digital-literacy support, and technology-access safeguards.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.