Next Article in Journal
LAI-ART Awareness, Willingness, Barriers and Facilitators among Black Sexual Minority Men Living with HIV in the US South
Previous Article in Journal
Predictive Modelling of Postpartum Haemorrhage Using Early Risk Factors: A Comparative Analysis of Statistical and Machine Learning Models
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evidence of Use of Whole-Body Vibration in Individuals with Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 21
Issue 5
10.3390/ijerph21050601
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Effectiveness of Clinician-Led Community-Based Group Exercise Interventions on Health Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Liam White
1,
Morwenna Kirwan
1,
Vita Christie
2,3,*,
Lauren Hurst
1 and
Kylie Gwynne
2,3
1
Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Talavera Road, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia
2
Djurali Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research, Heart Research Institute, Eliza Street, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia
3
DVC Indigenous Office, University of New South Wales, High Street, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(5), 601; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050601
Submission received: 18 March 2024 / Revised: 3 May 2024 / Accepted: 4 May 2024 / Published: 7 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effectiveness of Physical Exercise for People with Chronic Diseases)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the combined effects of clinician-led and community-based group exercise interventions on a range of health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Our literature search spanned Medline, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases, focusing on peer-reviewed studies published between January 2003 and January 2023. We included studies involving participants aged 18 years and older and articles published in English, resulting in a dataset of eight studies with 938 participants. Spanning eight peer-reviewed studies with 938 participants, the analysis focused on the interventions’ impact on glycemic control, physical fitness, and anthropometric and hematological measurements. Outcomes related to physical fitness, assessed through the six-minute walk test, the 30 s sit-to-stand test, and the chair sit-and-reach test, were extracted from five studies, all of which reported improvements. Anthropometric outcomes from seven studies highlighted positive changes in waist circumference and diastolic blood pressure; however, measures such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, weight, and resting heart rate did not exhibit significant changes. Hematological outcomes, reviewed in four studies, showed significant improvements in fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, and total cholesterol, with glycemic control evidenced by reductions in HbA1c levels, yet LDL and HDL cholesterol levels remained unaffected. Ten of the fifteen outcome measures assessed showed significant enhancement, indicating that the intervention strategies implemented may offer substantial health benefits for managing key type 2 diabetes mellitus-related health parameters. These findings in combination with further research, could inform the refinement of physical activity guidelines for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, advocating for supervised group exercise in community settings.

1. Introduction

Diabetes affects more than half a billion individuals globally, with type 2 diabetes mellitus comprising 90% to 95% of these cases [1]. This prevalence, representing nearly one in ten adults, is increasing and poses a significant threat to the health and well-being of people, impacting individuals, families, and societies [1].
Physical activity, alongside nutritional and medical therapies, is critical for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus [2]. Exercise, a specific category of physical activity, involves activities that improve strength, endurance, agility, balance, and flexibility, all of which are beneficial for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. These benefits extend beyond physical health, positively affecting the psychological and cognitive aspects of health [2]. Current guidelines advise adults aged 18–64 with type 2 diabetes mellitus to undertake at least 150 min of moderate-to-vigorous intensity exercise weekly and to participate in resistance training sessions at least twice a week [2]. Despite such guidelines, over 1.4 billion adults globally fall short of meeting these physical activity recommendations, regardless of their type 2 diabetes mellitus status [3].
Researchers have investigated several physical activity intervention techniques to support people with type 2 diabetes mellitus to be more active. Clinician-led facility-based fitness training is one such tactic, and it has the potential to enhance glycemic management and other cardiovascular risk factors of type 2 diabetes mellitus [4,5,6]. These interventions are frequently resource-intensive, only accessible in large cities, and their long-term viability is uncertain [7]. Other methods to encourage physical activity in type 2 diabetes mellitus adults include individual-based treatments, medication use, and behavior modification. It can be difficult to persuade people with type 2 diabetes mellitus to embrace behavior change with only short visits to their GP [7]. These self-management techniques are also only moderately effective in the near term, and long-term evaluations are frequently relatively few [8]. Furthermore, those with low incomes, low levels of education, limited access to healthcare, and linguistic and cultural hurdles may find these types of treatments to be inaccessible [8].
The burgeoning prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus necessitates an expansion of existing intervention strategies to manage the disease effectively. The synthesis of clinician-led and community-based exercise interventions presents a promising hybrid model, leveraging the structured guidance of healthcare professionals with the accessibility of community settings. Recognizing the potential of this integrated approach could be instrumental in shaping future health policies and guidelines that seek to amplify the reach and impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus management strategies. Community-based exercise interventions might overcome the limitations of facility-based and individual approaches by providing culturally relevant health education. Facility-based interventions are administered in controlled, institutional environments such as hospitals or clinics, while community-based interventions take place within local settings, utilizing area resources and engaging community members, potentially increasing adherence to self-management practices [9,10]. The World Health Organization advocates for such interventions to promote physical activity among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus [11]. Updates to physical activity guidelines now recommend clinician-led exercise as a beneficial strategy [12]. A systematic review in 2018 indicated that supervised aerobic and resistance training yields better health outcomes than unsupervised activities [13]. Studies combining community-based and clinician-led exercises have shown health benefits [14,15], with some effects persisting for up to twelve months post-intervention [16].
This study evaluated the combination of clinician-led and community-based exercise interventions of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus through a systematic review and meta-analysis. In this context, a “clinician” is a qualified health worker who delivers services in community settings. The study design anticipated sufficient quantitative data to include a meta-analysis. Unlike previous studies conducted in a workplace or traditional clinical settings, this research investigates the effectiveness of group exercise interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus implemented in community-based settings such as recreation centers, local facilities, and community centers. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review targeting the efficacy of supervised group exercise interventions in community settings for enhancing health outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus adults.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [17] and was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: ID no. CRD42023363265).
In adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [17], the systematic search and selection process for relevant studies was conducted across multiple databases. A comprehensive search yielded a total of 693 studies from CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Medline, and PubMed. Following the removal of 264 duplicates, 429 abstracts were screened. Of these, 415 studies were excluded based on exclusion criteria, leaving 14 full-text articles to be assessed for eligibility. Reasons for exclusion at this stage included the absence of outcome data reported as mean and standard deviation and the lack of integration of both clinician-led and community-based approaches in the interventions. Ultimately, 8 studies met all criteria and were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

2.2. Search Strategy and Data Sources

The search strategy was developed in consultation with two senior health researchers (MK, KG) and a health research librarian. A comprehensive literature search across Medline, Scopus, Pubmed, Embase, and CINAHL databases for peer-reviewed studies published from January 2003 until January 2023 was conducted. We employed the following search strings to gather relevant data: “(Type 2 Diabetes OR Diabetes) AND (Clinician Led OR Supervised) AND (Community-based OR Community) AND (Exercise OR Physical Activity OR Fitness OR Outcome Measures) AND (Management)”. These search parameters were refined to include subjects aged 18 years and older and articles published in the English language (Supplementary File: Table S1. MeSH Terms and Database Searches).
Initial identification of titles and abstracts was independently performed by two authors (LW and MK), with disparities resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer (KG) if required. Full texts of potentially relevant studies were then retrieved and assessed for eligibility. The final inclusion of articles was determined by checking the references of selected studies for additional relevant literature. All search results were systematically organized using Microsoft Excel (Version 16.84).
For this review, we adopted a PICO framework focusing on:
Participants/Population: Adults (18 years or older) involved in clinician-led, community-based exercise programs for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Intervention(s)/Exposure(s): Eligible studies were those conducted in high-income countries—specified regions (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK, and Europe), with interventions predominantly based on PA (over 50%), targeting adults with pre-existing type 2 diabetes mellitus, using community-based settings, and overseen by qualified clinicians, presenting quantitative studies of original data in peer-reviewed journals.
Comparator(s)/Control: Participants receiving standard care without the specified clinician-led, community-based exercise.
Main Outcome(s): Measurable pre- and post-health outcomes related to PA, including weight loss, BMI changes, waist-to-hip ratios, HbA1c levels, and six-minute walk test (6MWT) improvements.
Additional Outcome(s): Compliance with PA programs, clinician experience, and details on the interventions’ setting and delivery.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

This review included full-text, published, peer-reviewed literature with original outcome data that reported on the effectiveness of clinician-led, community-based, group exercise interventions for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The inclusion criteria included lifestyle interventions where exercise was a purposeful, structured, and required part of the intervention and conducted in high-income countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK, and Europe). Studies published 2003–2023 were included to obtain contemporary evidence.
Studies were omitted if they were not peer-reviewed, published prior to 2003, were not published in English, and did not feature interventions primarily based in the community. Exclusions also applied to research not primarily focused on physical activity, those that involved minors, or adults with diabetes types other than type 2 diabetes mellitus where specific data were not differentiated. Additional exclusion criteria encompassed studies conducted exclusively in clinical environments, those without the oversight of a professionally trained clinician, and research relying solely on qualitative data sources.

2.4. Data Extraction and Management

Following the study selection, data were extracted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This data included the title, authors, publication year, study design, location, clinician type, inclusion and exclusion criteria, participant details, type of physical activity intervention, outcome measures, and results.

2.5. Meta-Analysis

For the synthesis of results, we conducted a meta-analysis of comparable outcome measures, including glycemic control, physical fitness outcomes, and anthropometric measurements, employing the mean difference pooled using a random effects model [18] in IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28). The effect size was calculated for each relevant outcome measure at a 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I-squared statistic. The included studies’ effect estimations were represented graphically by forest plots. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Revman Web was used to display figures represented within this systematic review [19].

2.6. Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias in included studies was appraised using the EPHPP tool [20] by two authors (LW and LH) independently. The EPHPP tool was selected as a suitable tool for assessment of quantitative public health research. Any conflicting evaluations were discussed until a consensus was reached. The final inclusion of studies in the review depended on achieving at least a medium-quality rating.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection Process

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in strict accordance with the PRISMA guidelines [17], which dictate standards for reporting such research. The review started with a detailed search across several databases, namely CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Medline, and PubMed. This initial search yielded 693 studies. From these, 264 duplicates were identified and removed, leaving 429 for abstract screening. After careful consideration, 415 studies were excluded because they did not meet the specific criteria set out for this research.
The eligibility of the remaining 14 full-text articles was closely examined. Five of these articles were excluded for reasons including not reporting outcomes in the form of mean and standard deviation, or because they did not feature both clinician-led and community-based intervention approaches. Consequently, eight studies were selected for inclusion in the final review and analysis. This work was also officially registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [21] under the ID CRD42023363265, ensuring that the process was systematically planned and recorded. This has been displayed in our PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Characteristics

The eight studies encompassed a total of 938 participants and explored 15 health outcomes to ascertain the impact of clinician-led and community-based group exercise programs on adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We have detailed the characteristics of these studies in Table 1, which includes participant demographics, intervention types, durations, and settings. Requests for additional information were made to the authors of two studies [22,23].

3.3. Quality of Included Studies

Quality assessment using the EPHPP framework indicated that five studies were rated as “strong” overall, with the remaining three rated as “medium” (Table 2).
Most of the studies recruited participants through diabetes management clinics or patient databases. Among them, one study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial [23], while the other seven were pre-post studies. Confounding variables were identified in four of the studies [14,23,25,27]. It is noteworthy that all studies employed data collection methods recognized for their validity and reliability. However, there was a lack of clarity in the reporting of participant withdrawals and dropouts in two of the studies [14,15].

3.4. Cardiometabolic Health Indicators

Anthropometric measurements, as well as heart rate and blood pressure, were focal outcomes in seven studies, as depicted in Figure 2 [14,15,23,24,25,27,28]. A notable and statistically significant reduction emerged in both waist–hip circumference (CI: −4.27 to −1.70) and diastolic blood pressure (CI: −6.53 to −2.38). Trends suggesting improvement were seen in BMI (CI: −22.79 to 3.46) and systolic blood pressure (CI: 13.99 to 2.19), though these changes did not reach statistical significance. No associations were noted for either weight (CI: −2.17 to 1.54) or resting heart rate (CI: −1.20 to 1.46).

3.5. Physical Fitness and Functional Capacity

A suite of tests designed to evaluate physical and functional fitness, presented in Figure 3 [14,15,23,26,28], indicated significant improvements. These were quantified in the 6 min walk test (6MWT) (CI: 42.38 to 88.42), the 30 s sit-to-stand test (STS 30) (CI: 2.92 to 4.67), and the chair sit-and-reach test (CI: 2.68 to 5.52).

3.6. Glycemic and Lipid Profiles

The efficacy of the interventions on glycemic control and lipid metabolism was captured through hematological measures in four studies, as shown in Figure 4 [23,24,27,28]. There were statistically significant improvements in HbA1c (CI: −0.94 to −0.30), fasting blood glucose (CI: −26.37 to −9.73), triglycerides (CI: −39.95 to −18.48), and total cholesterol (CI: −26.41 to −2.89). LDL cholesterol presented a favorable trend (CI: −22.79 to 3.46), although not statistically significant. HDL cholesterol did not exhibit significant change post-intervention (CI: −3.33 to 4.17).

4. Discussion

This systematic review supports the assertion that a dual strategy encompassing clinician-led and community-based group exercise interventions can improve important health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Out of fifteen health outcomes assessed through meta-analysis, nine demonstrated statistically significant improvements associated with the intervention. This resonates with findings from prior systematic reviews, which similarly concluded that exercise interventions delivered in community or clinical settings are efficacious for type 2 diabetes mellitus management [7,13].
Cardiometabolic Health Indicators: Our analysis identified significant enhancements in waist circumference and diastolic blood pressure among the intervention group. The implications of these improvements are noteworthy considering the pivotal role these indicators play in forecasting glycemic control within the type 2 diabetes mellitus population [28,29]. Although no substantial association was found between the interventions and BMI, body weight, resting heart rate, or systolic blood pressure, these parameters have been reported to improve in earlier interventions as per previous reviews [7,13].
Physical Fitness and Functional Capacity: The interventions included in our meta-analysis also significantly improved cardiovascular fitness, lower body strength, and flexibility. These findings hold particular importance because individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus are prone to a gradual decline in physical function due to aging, which often leads to muscle atrophy and an increase in fat mass. These changes can substantially restrict mobility and physical function [30]. Our review indicates that intervention periods as brief as 2 to 3 months are capable of significantly enhancing the functional fitness of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Glycemic and Lipid Profiles: Hematological measures, including HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, and total cholesterol, also showed significant improvements post-intervention. Notably, despite a shorter intervention span of 8 weeks, the study by Akinci et al. [23] reported changes in mean values comparable to those from studies with longer durations, each extending beyond 3 months [24,27,28]. This observation is particularly striking as HbA1c levels reflect an individual’s average blood glucose control over a three-month period [31], suggesting that even brief interventions can be beneficial. However, due to the nature of HbA1c, long-term follow-up in future studies may be required to understand the full impact of these interventions [24].
Research that evaluates the health benefits of physical activity for older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus yields findings of considerable importance. A concerning trend highlighted by current research is the lower fitness levels observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus as compared to non-diabetic individuals, a disparity that is worsened with aging [32]. Improvements in physical and functional fitness are crucial for this group, as they are intimately linked with reductions in cardiovascular risks and improvements in insulin sensitivity [33]. Nonetheless, the task of evaluating the clinical importance of such physical and functional fitness improvements is complex. Quantifying the clinical impact of the physical and functional fitness improvements noted in our systematic review is difficult due to limited data on what constitutes a clinically significant change for this population [34].
To address this, validated criterion standards, though not specific to type 2 diabetes mellitus, offer valuable benchmarks for the fitness levels necessary for older adults to remain independent [35]. Our systematic review incorporated two studies [14,15] that used these benchmarks to assess participants’ baseline fitness and subsequent improvements. These benchmarks were critical for quantifying participants’ fitness levels in relation to the standards needed for independence with aging. The findings from Kirwan et al. [14,15] were encouraging, showing a considerable number of participants reaching or surpassing the target fitness levels after the intervention. These findings bolster the case for future research to utilize these benchmarks in community-based, clinician-led group exercise programs, which would allow for a more nuanced interpretation of changes in the physical and functional fitness among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
In the current discourse on geriatric health, the significance of functional fitness emerges as a critical factor, particularly within the demographic contending with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Maintaining an adequate level of functional fitness is instrumental in diminishing fall risks and fostering the capacity for independent living, which in turn exerts a substantial influence on the quality of life [36]. For individuals navigating the complexities of type 2 diabetes mellitus management, preserving their independence and the ability to conduct daily living activities constitutes a fundamental health objective [32]. A deficiency in effective, targeted interventions may result in a trajectory that culminates in dependency, precipitating substantial long-term economic burdens on healthcare systems. Complicating this issue is the prevalence of physical inactivity among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, which further exacerbates the risk of functional decline [37,38].
The studies included in this review showed favorable health outcomes for participants; however, these studies varied in duration from 8 weeks to 9 months. It remains to be seen whether the short-term benefits translate into long-term health improvements over the years. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine if the observed benefits persist and to investigate methods to encourage sustained engagement with these exercise programs.
The cost-effectiveness of combined clinician-led and community-based interventions also warrants further exploration. Community-based interventions are often perceived as more economical compared to their clinic-based counterparts. Nevertheless, additional financial considerations such as staffing, program development, and the upkeep of facilities must not be overlooked. A recent systematic review has summarized the existing economic evaluations of physical activity interventions specifically in the context of type 2 diabetes mellitus management [39]. The findings are encouraging, indicating that such interventions are generally a sound investment—four out of ten interventions were deemed cost-saving, while six were considered cost-effective, and two displayed favorable cost-utility characteristics. Future research should, therefore, extend to a thorough cost-effectiveness and cost-utility assessment of combined community-based and clinician-led group exercise interventions. Such inquiry is essential to assess the practicality and potential for broader application within diverse healthcare systems.
This research acknowledges several limitations that warrant caution in interpreting the findings. Primarily, the recruitment of participants from referred sources such as clinics may introduce bias, as opposed to random selection from a representative target population which could offer a more balanced perspective. Furthermore, the reporting of participant adherence was often absent or noted to be moderate at best. For instance, Higgs et al. observed a dropout rate of approximately 40 percent before the follow-up measures could be taken [24]. Additionally, the participant gender ratio in many included studies was skewed, potentially affecting the extrapolation of results to the broader type 2 diabetes mellitus community, there are no molecular data or experimentally derived data and it is not clear whether these interventions can be applied to different geographical locations and different people. Despite these constraints, efforts were made to design this review to maximize the translational potential of the findings.
In terms of strengths, this review’s robust sample size of 938 participants enhances the reliability of the conclusions drawn. The deliberate inclusion of anthropometric, functional, and hematological measures offers a comprehensive view of the multifaceted impacts that clinician-led and community-based exercise interventions may have on adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Additionally, the selection of studies from countries with analogous cultures—such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK, and Europe—was intended to ensure participant homogeneity.
The insights garnered from this systematic review could inform refinements to physical activity guidelines tailored for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, advocating for community-based, clinician-led exercise modalities. Notably, current Australian exercise recommendations for type 2 diabetes mellitus management mirror those for the general population, with specific guidance on blood glucose management during physical activity [2,40]. However, our review does not conclusively favor a particular community setting or clinician type, which may stem from the diverse community structures and clinician roles across the various countries of the included studies. This area might benefit from further investigative efforts.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our analysis of eight studies presenting quantitative data corroborates the expanding evidence that both community-based and clinician-led group exercise interventions can positively influence health outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Yet, the need for additional research is evident, especially regarding the interventions’ effectiveness within culturally and linguistically diverse groups. By addressing this gap, we can move towards resolving persisting uncertainties and creating customized interventions that address the distinct needs of these communities.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph21050601/s1, Table S1: MeSH Terms and Database Searches.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K. and K.G.; methodology, M.K., K.G. and L.W.; validation, L.W. and L.H.; formal analysis, L.W. and M.K.; resources, M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, L.W. and M.K.; writing—review and editing, V.C., K.G., L.W. and M.K.; visualization, L.W. and M.K.; supervision, K.G. and M.K.; project administration, L.W. and V.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be made available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Diabetes around the World in 2021. International Diabetes Federation Web Site. Available online: https://diabetesatlas.org/ (accessed on 4 November 2022).
  2. Kanaley, J.A.; Colberg, S.R.; Corcoran, M.H.; Malin, S.K.; Rodriguez, N.R.; Crespo, C.J.; Kirwan, J.P.; Zierath, J.R. Exercise/physical activity in individuals with type 2 diabetes: A consensus statement from the American College of Sports Medicine. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2022, 54, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Physical Activity. World Health Organization Web Site. Available online: https://www.who.int/newsroom/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity (accessed on 4 November 2022).
  4. Sigal, R.J.; Kenny, G.P.; Boulé, N.G.; Wells, G.A.; Prud’Homme, D.; Fortier, M.; Reid, R.D.; Tulloch, H.; Coyle, D.; Phillips, P.; et al. Effects of aerobic training, resistance training, or both on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2007, 147, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Balducci, S. Effect of an intensive exercise intervention strategy on modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitusa randomized controlled trial: The italian diabetes and exercise study (Ides)intensive exercise and modifiable cv risk factors. Arch. Intern. Med. 2010, 170, 1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Church, T.S.; Blair, S.N.; Cocreham, S.; Johannsen, N.; Johnson, W.; Kramer, K.; Mikus, C.R.; Myers, V.; Nauta, M.; Rodarte, R.Q.; et al. Effects of aerobic and resistance training on hemoglobin a 1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010, 304, 2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Plotnikoff, R.C.; Costigan, S.A.; Karunamuni, N.D.; Lubans, D.R. Community-based physical activity interventions for treatment of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Front. Endocrinol. 2013, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Plotnikoff, R.C. Physical activity in the management of diabetes: Population-based perspectives and strategies. Can. J. Diabetes 2006, 30, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Two Feathers, J.; Kieffer, E.C.; Palmisano, G.; Anderson, M.; Sinco, B.; Janz, N.; Heisler, M.; Spencer, M.; Guzman, R.; Thompson, J.; et al. Racial and ethnic approaches to community health (Reach) detroit partnership: Improving diabetes- related outcomes among african american and latino adults. Am. J. Public Health 2005, 95, 1552–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Vachon, G.C.; Ezike, N.; Brown-Walker, M.; Chhay, V.; Pikelny, I.; Pendergraft, T.B. Improving access to diabetes care in an inner-city, community-based outpatient health center with a monthly open-access, multistation group visit program. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2007, 99, 1327–1336. [Google Scholar]
  11. World Health Organization. Interventions on Diet and Physical Activity: What Works: Summary Report. 2009. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK177205/ (accessed on 7 November 2022).
  12. Ivers, N.M.; Jiang, M.; Alloo, J.; Singer, A.; Ngui, D.; Casey, C.G.; Yu, C.H. Diabetes Canada 2018 clinical practice guidelines: Key messages for family physicians caring for patients living with type 2 diabetes. Can. Fam. Physician 2019, 65, 14–24. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pan, B.; Ge, L.; Xun, Y.Q.; Chen, Y.-J.; Gao, C.-Y.; Han, X.; Zuo, L.-Q.; Shan, H.-Q.; Yang, K.-H.; Ding, G.-W.; et al. Exercise training modalities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kirwan, M.; Chiu, C.L.; Laing, T.; Chowdhury, N.; Gwynne, K. A web-delivered, clinician-led group exercise intervention for older adults with type 2 diabetes: Single-arm pre &post intervention. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24, e39800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kirwan, M.; Chiu, C.L.; Hay, M.; Laing, T. Community-based exercise and lifestyle program improves health outcomes in older adults with type 2 diabetes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kirwan, M.; Gwynne, K.; Laing, T.; Hay, M.; Chowdhury, N.; Chiu, C.L. Can health improvements from a community-based exercise and lifestyle program for older adults with type 2 diabetes be maintained? A follow up study. Diabetology 2022, 3, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. IBM SPSS Statistics 28. IBM Web Site. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-28 (accessed on 9 June 2023).
  19. RevMan Web. Cochrane Web Site. Available online: https://revman.cochrane.org/#/myReviews (accessed on 9 June 2023).
  20. Thomas, B.H.; Ciliska, D.; Dobbins, M.; Micucci, S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 2004, 1, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schiavo, J.H. Prospero: An international register of systematic review protocols. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 2019, 38, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Akinci, B.; Yeldan, I.; Satman, I.; Dirican, A.; Ozdincler, A.R. The effects of Internet-based exercise compared with supervised group exercise in people with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled study. Clin. Rehabil. 2018, 32, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mendes, R.; Sousa, N.; Reis, V.; Themudo-Barata, J. Implementing low-cost, community-based exercise programs for middle-aged and older patients with type 2 diabetes: What are the benefits for glycemic control and cardiovascular risk? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Higgs, C.; Skinner, M.; Hale, L. Outcomes of a community-based lifestyle programme for adults with diabetes or pre-diabetes. J. Prim. Health Care 2016, 8, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mendes, R.; Sousa, N.; Themudo-Barata, J.; Reis, V. Impact of a community-based exercise programme on physical fitness in middle-aged and older patients with type 2 diabetes. Gac. Sanit. 2016, 30, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cugusi, L.; Cadeddu, C.; Nocco, S.; Orrù, F.; Bandino, S.; Deidda, M.; Caria, A.; Bassareo, P.P.; Piras, A.; Cabras, S.; et al. Effects of an aquatic-based exercise program to improve cardiometabolic profile, quality of life, and physical activity levels in men with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PM&R 2015, 7, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Negri, C.; Bacchi, E.; Morgante, S.; Soave, D.; Marques, A.; Menghini, E.; Muggeo, M.; Bonora, E.; Moghetti, P. Supervised walking groups to increase physical activity in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 2333–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Oumer, A.; Ale, A.; Tariku, Z.; Hamza, A.; Abera, L.; Seifu, A. Waist-to-hip circumference and waist-to-height ratio could strongly predict glycemic control than body mass index among adult patients with diabetes in Ethiopia: ROC analysis. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0273786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fontes-Carvalho, R.; Ladeiras-Lopes, R.; Bettencourt, P.; Leite-Moreira, A.; Azevedo, A. Diastolic dysfunction in the diabetic continuum: Association with insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2015, 14, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Payette, H.; Gueye, N.R.; Gaudreau, P.; Morais, J.A.; Shatenstein, B.; Gray-Donald, K. Trajectories of physical function decline and psychological functioning: The Quebec longitudinal study on nutrition and successful aging (NuAge). J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2011, 66 (Suppl. S1), i82–i90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Sherwani, S.I.; Khan, H.A.; Ekhzaimy, A.; Masood, A.; Sakharkar, M.K. Significance of hba1c test in diagnosis and prognosis of diabetic patients. Biomark. Insights 2016, 11, BMI.S38440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Reusch, J.E.; Bridenstine, M.; Regensteiner, J.G. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and exercise impairment. Rev. Endocr. Metab. Disord. 2013, 14, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Church, T.S.; Cheng, Y.J.; Earnest, C.P.; Barlow, C.E.; Gibbons, L.W.; Priest, E.L.; Blair, S.N. Exercise Capacity and Body Composition As Predictors of Mortality among Men with Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004, 27, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Taylor, J.D.; Fletcher, J.P.; Tiarks, J. Impact of Physical Therapist–Directed Exercise Counseling Combined with Fitness Center–Based Exercise Training on Muscular Strength and Exercise Capacity in People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Phys. Ther. 2009, 89, 884–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rikli, R.E.; Jones, C.J. Development and validation of criterion-referenced clinically relevant fitness standards for maintaining physical independence in later years. Gerontologist 2013, 53, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stenhagen, M.; Ekström, H.; Nordell, E.; Elmståhl, S. Accidental falls, health-related quality of life and life satisfaction: A prospective study of the general elderly population. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2014, 58, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Jarvie, J.L.; Pandey, A.; Ayers, C.R.; McGavock, J.M.; Sénéchal, M.; Berry, J.D.; Patel, K.V.; McGuire, D.K. Aerobic fitness and adherence to guideline-recommended minimum physical activity among ambulatory patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 1333–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zhao, G.; Ford, E.S.; Li, C.; Balluz, L.S. Physical activity in, U.S. older adults with diabetes mellitus: Prevalence and correlates of meeting physical activity recommendations. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2011, 59, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Barbosa, A.; Whiting, S.; Ding, D.; Brito, J.; Mendes, R. Economic evaluation of physical activity interventions for type 2 diabetes management: A systematic review. Eur. J. Public Health 2022, 32 (Suppl. S1), i56–i66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Living with Diabetes. Diabetes Australia Web Site. Available online: https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/living-with-diabetes/exercise/ (accessed on 12 June 2023).
Ijerph 21 00601 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram illustrating the selection process for studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram illustrating the selection process for studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ijerph 21 00601 g001
Ijerph 21 00601 g002
Figure 2. Forest plots depicting the effects of interventions on cardiometabolic parameters: body mass index (BMI, kg/m2 where kg = kilograms, m2 = square meters), waist circumference (cm, where cm = centimeters), weight (kg), resting heart rate (bpm, where bpm = beats per minute), systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, both measured in mmHg (millimeters of mercury). Each plot displays mean values, standard deviations (SD), total participant counts, and study-specific weights. Mean differences are shown with 95% confidence intervals (CI), calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity is quantified by I2 and tau-squared (τ2) values. Studies referenced: Kirwan et al., 2022 [14], Kirwan et al., 2021 [15], Akinci et al., 2018 [22], Mendes et al., 2017 [23], Higgs et al., 2016 [24], Cugusi et al., 2015 [26], Negri et al., 2010 [27].
Figure 2. Forest plots depicting the effects of interventions on cardiometabolic parameters: body mass index (BMI, kg/m2 where kg = kilograms, m2 = square meters), waist circumference (cm, where cm = centimeters), weight (kg), resting heart rate (bpm, where bpm = beats per minute), systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, both measured in mmHg (millimeters of mercury). Each plot displays mean values, standard deviations (SD), total participant counts, and study-specific weights. Mean differences are shown with 95% confidence intervals (CI), calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity is quantified by I2 and tau-squared (τ2) values. Studies referenced: Kirwan et al., 2022 [14], Kirwan et al., 2021 [15], Akinci et al., 2018 [22], Mendes et al., 2017 [23], Higgs et al., 2016 [24], Cugusi et al., 2015 [26], Negri et al., 2010 [27].
Ijerph 21 00601 g002
Ijerph 21 00601 g003
Figure 3. Forest plots of intervention effects on physical and functional fitness measures. Top panel: Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) measured in meters (m), evaluating walking distance. Middle panel: Sit-to-Stand in 30 Seconds Test (STS 30), counting the number of repetitions. Bottom panel: Chair Sit-and-Reach Test measured in centimeters (cm), assessing reach and flexibility. Each plot includes data on mean and standard deviation (SD) for intervention and baseline, total study weight, and the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity across studies is quantified by I2 statistics and Tau2 values. Notably, significant improvements in physical performance measures are observed following the intervention, as indicated by the mean differences and confidence intervals. Studies referenced: Kirwan et al., 2022 [14], Kirwan et al., 2021 [15], Akinci et al., 2018 [22], Higgs et al., 2016 [24], Mendes et al., 2016 [25], Negri et al., 2010 [27].
Figure 3. Forest plots of intervention effects on physical and functional fitness measures. Top panel: Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) measured in meters (m), evaluating walking distance. Middle panel: Sit-to-Stand in 30 Seconds Test (STS 30), counting the number of repetitions. Bottom panel: Chair Sit-and-Reach Test measured in centimeters (cm), assessing reach and flexibility. Each plot includes data on mean and standard deviation (SD) for intervention and baseline, total study weight, and the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity across studies is quantified by I2 statistics and Tau2 values. Notably, significant improvements in physical performance measures are observed following the intervention, as indicated by the mean differences and confidence intervals. Studies referenced: Kirwan et al., 2022 [14], Kirwan et al., 2021 [15], Akinci et al., 2018 [22], Higgs et al., 2016 [24], Mendes et al., 2016 [25], Negri et al., 2010 [27].
Ijerph 21 00601 g003
Ijerph 21 00601 g004
Figure 4. Forest plots displaying the effects of interventions on glycemic and lipid profiles measured in milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). The plots are organized by biomarker: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), Fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL). Each plot provides the mean and standard deviation (SD) at baseline and post-intervention, total sample size, mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the weight of each study in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity is quantified using I2 statistics, indicating the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. The intervention effect is assessed with a random effects model, showcasing significant changes in each biomarker following the intervention. Studies referenced: Akinci et al., 2018 [22], Mendes et al., 2017 [23], Cugusi et al., 2015 [26], Negri et al., 2010 [27].
Figure 4. Forest plots displaying the effects of interventions on glycemic and lipid profiles measured in milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). The plots are organized by biomarker: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), Fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL). Each plot provides the mean and standard deviation (SD) at baseline and post-intervention, total sample size, mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the weight of each study in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity is quantified using I2 statistics, indicating the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. The intervention effect is assessed with a random effects model, showcasing significant changes in each biomarker following the intervention. Studies referenced: Akinci et al., 2018 [22], Mendes et al., 2017 [23], Cugusi et al., 2015 [26], Negri et al., 2010 [27].
Ijerph 21 00601 g004
Table 1. Individual study characteristics.
Table 1. Individual study characteristics.
Study Authors and DateParticipantsIntervention DurationIntervention TypeSettingSupervising
Clinician
N (% Female)Age (y), Mean (SD)
Kirwan et al., 2022 [14]171 (68)71 (5.6)8 weeksTwice weekly synchronous group exercise sessions
including a dynamic warm-up and cooldown, aerobic, resistance, balance, and
flexibility exercises		Online—participant’s homeAccredited Exercise Physiologist
Kirwan et al., 2021 [15]588 (52)69.8 (5.6)8 weeksTwice weekly group exercise sessions including a dynamic warm-up and cooldown, aerobic, resistance, balance, and flexibility exercisesVaried locations including public gyms, community halls, and
private clinics		Accredited Exercise Physiologist
Akinci et al., 2018 [22]22 (81.8)53.59 (6.02)8 weeksThree times a week of group
based aerobic and resistance exercises.		University
Faculty of Health Sciences		Physiotherapist
Mendes et al., 2017 [23]39 (51.3)62.05 (6.14)9 monthsThree times a week of group based aerobic, resistance,
agility/balance, and flexibility exercises		Community sports complexExercise professional and nurse
Higgs et al., 2016 [24]36 (58)62 (11)12 weeksTwice weekly group sessions comprising education on a variety of health-related topics and exercise. Which Included an aerobic warmup, followed by resistance, aerobic and flexibility
exercises		University fitness centerPhysiotherapist and student physiotherapists
Mendes et al., 2016 [25]43 (51)62.51 (5.92)9 monthsThree times a week consisting of a mix of aerobic, resistance and
balance training		Community sports complexExercise professionals
Cugusi et al., 2015 [26]18 (0)52.2 (9.28)12 weeksThree times a week
consisting of a group aquatic- based exercise program.
Which included aerobic, resistance and stretching
exercises.		Aquatic centerNR
Negri et al., 2010 [27]21 (NR)65.7 (4.9)4 monthsThree times a week
consisting of group aerobic
exercise.		Walking groupsPersonal trainers
Abbreviations: N = Number; % Female = Percentage of Female Participants; y = Years; SD = Standard Deviation; NR = Not Reported.
Table 2. Risk of bias assessment—EPHPP scores of included studies.
Table 2. Risk of bias assessment—EPHPP scores of included studies.
Study Authors and DateSelection BiasStudy DesignConfoundersBlindingData Collection
Method		Withdrawals and
Dropouts		Overall Quality
Score
Kirwan et al., 2022 [14]ModerateModerateModerateModerateStrongWeakModerate
Kirwan et al., 2021 [15]ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongWeakModerate
Akinci et al., 2018 [22]ModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongModerateStrong
Mendes et al., 2017 [23]ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongModerateStrong
Higgs et al., 2016 [24]ModerateModerateModerateModerateStrongModerateStrong
Mendes et al., 2016 [25]ModerateModeratestrongModerateStrongmoderateStrong
Cugusi et al., 2015 [26]ModerateModerateWeakModerateStrongStrongModerate
Negri et al., 2010 [27]ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongStrong
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

White, L.; Kirwan, M.; Christie, V.; Hurst, L.; Gwynne, K. The Effectiveness of Clinician-Led Community-Based Group Exercise Interventions on Health Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 601. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050601

AMA Style

White L, Kirwan M, Christie V, Hurst L, Gwynne K. The Effectiveness of Clinician-Led Community-Based Group Exercise Interventions on Health Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(5):601. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050601

Chicago/Turabian Style

White, Liam, Morwenna Kirwan, Vita Christie, Lauren Hurst, and Kylie Gwynne. 2024. "The Effectiveness of Clinician-Led Community-Based Group Exercise Interventions on Health Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 5: 601. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050601

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop