Improved Glycemic Control With a Digital Health Intervention in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND: Traditional lifestyle interventions have shown limited success in improving diabetes-related outcomes. Digital interventions with continuously available support and personalized educational content may offer unique advantages for self-management and glycemic control. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated changes in glycemic control among participants with type 2 diabetes who enrolled in a digital diabetes management program. METHODS: The study employed a single-arm, retrospective design. A total of 950 participants with a hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) baseline value of at least 7.0% enrolled in the Vida Health Diabetes Management Program. The intervention included one-to-one remote sessions with a Vida provider and structured lessons and tools related to diabetes management. HbA(1c) was the primary outcome measure. Of the 950 participants, 258 (27.2%) had a follow-up HbA(1c) completed at least 90 days from program start. Paired t tests were used to evaluate changes in HbA(1c) between baseline and follow-up. Additionally, a cluster-robust multiple regression analysis was employed to evaluate the relationship between high and low program usage and HbA(1c) change. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate the difference in HbA(1c) as a function of the measurement period (ie, pre-Vida enrollment, baseline, and postenrollment follow-up). RESULTS: We observed a significant reduction in HbA(1c) of –0.81 points between baseline (mean 8.68, SD 1.7) and follow-up (mean 7.88, SD 1.46; t(257)=7.71; P<.001). Among participants considered high risk (baseline HbA(1c)≥8), there was an average reduction of –1.44 points between baseline (mean 9.73, SD 1.68) and follow-up (mean 8.29, SD 1.64; t(139)=9.14; P<.001). Additionally, average follow-up HbA(1c) (mean 7.82, SD 1.41) was significantly lower than pre-enrollment HbA(1c) (mean 8.12, SD 1.46; F(2, 210)=22.90; P<.001) There was also significant effect of program usage on HbA(1c) change (β=–.60; P<.001) such that high usage was associated with a greater decrease in HbA(1c) (mean –1.02, SD 1.60) compared to low usage (mean –.61, SD 1.72). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control among participants enrolled in a digital diabetes management intervention. Higher program usage was associated with greater improvements in HbA(1c). The findings of the present study suggest that a digital health intervention may represent an accessible, scalable, and effective solution to diabetes management and improved HbA(1c). The study was limited by a nonrandomized, observational design and limited postenrollment follow-up data.