The effectiveness of physical leisure time activities on glycaemic control in adult patients with diabetes type 2: A Systematic Review

Joint associations of fresh fruit intake and physical activity with glycaemic control among adult patients with diabetes: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the joint associations of fresh fruit intake and physical activity with glycaemic control in adult patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

DESIGN

It was an observational study involving adult patients with DM through a face-to-face questionnaire survey, physical measurements and laboratory examinations. Data were analysed by introducing a generalised linear mixed model, and a significant difference was set at p<0.05.

SETTING

Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 5663 adult patients with DM from the 2017 Nanjing Chronic Disease and Risk Factor Surveillance were recruited.

RESULTS

Based on the food frequency questionnaire, fresh fruit intake was classified as 'not eat', '1~99 g/day' and '≥100 g/day'. Physical activity level was calculated based on the data of Global Physical Activity Questionnaire and classified into insufficient physical activity (<600 MET-min/week) and sufficient physical activity (≥600 MET-min/week). The likelihood of glycaemic control in adult patients with DM with fresh fruit intake ≥100 g/day was 37.8% (OR: 1.378; 95% CI: 1.209 to 1.571) higher than those with fresh fruit intake <100 g/day, which was 26% (OR: 1.260; 95% CI: 1.124 to 1.412) higher in adult patients with DM with sufficient physical activity than those with insufficient physical activity. Adult patients with DM with fresh fruit intake ≥100 g/day and sufficient physical activity presented the greatest likelihood of glycaemic control (OR: 1.758; 95% CI: 1.471 to 2.102) compared with those with both fresh fruit intake <100 g/day and insufficient physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Fresh fruit intake ≥100 g/day combined with sufficient physical activity is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of glycaemic control in adult patients with DM.

Study protocol for a multicentre, controlled non-randomised trial: benefits of exercise physiology services for type 2 diabetes (BEST)

INTRODUCTION

Controlled trials support the efficacy of exercise as a treatment modality for chronic conditions, yet effectiveness of real-world Exercise Physiology services is yet to be determined. This study will investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of services provided by Accredited Exercise Physiologists (AEPs) for clients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A non-randomised, opportunistic control, longitudinal design trial will be conducted at ten Exercise Physiology Clinics. Participants will be individuals with T2D attending one of the Exercise Physiology Clinics for routine AEP services (exercise prescription and counselling) (intervention) or individuals with T2D not receiving AEP services (usual care) (control). The experimental period will be 6 months with measurements performed at baseline and at 6 months. Primary outcome measures will be glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), resting brachial blood pressure (BP), body mass index, waist circumference, 6 min walk test, grip strength, 30 s sit to stand, Medical Outcomes Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey and Active Australia Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes will be medication usage, out-of-pocket expenses, incidental, billable and non-billable health professional encounters and work missed through ill health. Healthcare utilisation will be measured for 12 months prior to, during and 12 months after trial participation using linked data from Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is a multicentre trial comprising: University of Tasmania, University of New South Wales Lifestyle Clinic, University of Canberra, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute (covered under the ethics approval of University of Tasmania Health and Medical Ethics Committee H0015266), Deakin University (Approval number: 2016-187), Australian Catholic University (2016-304R), Queensland University of Technology (1600000049), University of South Australia (0000035306), University of Western Australia (RA/4/1/8282) and Canberra Hospital (ETH.8.17.170). The findings of this clinical trial will be communicated via peer-reviewed journal articles, conference presentations, social media and broadcast media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12616000264482.

Barriers and facilitators to physical activity among urban residents with diabetes in Nepal

INTRODUCTION

Physical activity is an important component of type 2 diabetes management. Physical activity level among general population in Nepal is reported to vary considerably. However, knowledge on physical activity in Nepali diabetics is very limited. Engagement in physical activity could be influenced by perception of barriers against adopting the behavior and benefits of adopting it. This study explores the prevalence of physical activity and factors that promote and hinder the behavior among urban residing diabetic patients from Nepal.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional design was adopted using a simple random sampling of type 2 diabetic patients from two diabetes clinics at Lalitpur and Kaski districts of Nepal. Two hundred and seventy participants were surveyed to obtain information on physical activity using Global Physical Activity Questionnaire. Metabolic equivalent values were calculated and categorized into high, moderate and low levels of physical activity. The information on perceived facilitators and barriers was collected by Exercise Barriers and Benefits Survey scale. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of the measures were estimated using multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

The study showed relatively high prevalence of physical activity among the urban Nepali diabetic patients; 52% were moderately active and 28% highly active. Travel and work-related activities were the major contributors. Male participants, educated and those living in extended families were more motivated for physical activity than their counterparts. Physical fitness, strength and flexibility, better sleep at night, social interaction and longevity, were identified as the major facilitators. Family responsibilities, busy schedule and family discouragement were identified as barriers against being physically active.

CONCLUSION

The diabetic patients were mostly moderately physically active. Future research could explore different context-specific ways of remaining physically active, apart from walking and doing household chores. More focus should also be placed on leisure time physical activity as it was found to be low. Interventions could be designed by promoting the facilitators and addressing the barriers of physical activity, which is likely to reduce the healthcare costs of management of diabetic complications.