Skip to main content

Leveraging continuous glucose monitoring as a catalyst for behaviour change: a scoping review



Amidst the escalating prevalence of glucose-related chronic diseases, the advancements, potential uses, and growing accessibility of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have piqued the interest of healthcare providers, consumers, and health behaviour researchers. Yet, there is a paucity of literature characterising the use of CGM in behavioural intervention research. This scoping review aims to describe targeted populations, health behaviours, health-related outcomes, and CGM protocols in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that employed CGM to support health behaviour change.


We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from inception to January 2024 for RCTs of behavioural interventions conducted in adults that incorporated CGM-based biological feedback. Citation searching was also performed. The review protocol was registered (


Collectively, 5389 citations were obtained from databases and citation searching, 3995 articles were screened, and 31 were deemed eligible and included in the review. Most studies (n = 20/31, 65%) included adults with type 2 diabetes and reported HbA1c as an outcome (n = 29/31, 94%). CGM was most commonly used in interventions to target changes in diet (n = 27/31, 87%) and/or physical activity (n = 16/31, 52%). 42% (n = 13/31) of studies provided prospective CGM-based guidance on diet or activity, while 61% (n = 19/31) included retrospective CGM-based guidance. CGM data was typically unblinded (n = 24/31, 77%) and CGM-based biological feedback was most often provided through the CGM and two-way communication (n = 12/31, 39%). Communication typically occurred in-person (n = 13/31, 42%) once per CGM wear (n = 13/31; 42%).


This scoping review reveals a predominant focus on diabetes in CGM-based interventions, pointing out a research gap in its wider application for behaviour change. Future research should expand the evidence base to support the use of CGM as a behaviour change tool and establish best practices for its implementation.

Trial registration


Healthcare has seen significant advancements in the use of wearable biosensors for real-time monitoring of specific biological analytes [1]. Such technology opens the door to delivering more personalised and timely interventions, which are pillars of the precision health movement [2]. Precision health offers a plausibly more efficacious approach to traditional ‘one-size-fits-all’ public health interventions by delivering the right support, to the right individual, based on their biological, behavioural, psychological, and social determinants of health [3, 4]. While some limitations of precision health still need to be addressed, such as inequities in social, environmental and economic influences [5], providing timely feedback that is based on one’s biological state (“biological feedback”) has great potential to support changes in behaviours that meaningfully impact health-related outcomes [6].

Biological feedback is defined as “providing individuals with their biological data through direct communication (via an unblinded body-worn assessment device such as a heart rate monitor or a continuous glucose monitor [CGM]); or indirect communication (via health coaches, patient educators, or messaging systems) about biological data to support health behaviour change explicitly or implicitly for improving health-related outcomes” [7]. This form of feedback is distinct from the traditional mind–body technique of “biofeedback,” which provides feedback on one’s autonomic nervous system to treat health conditions [8, 9]. In our recent scoping review, we found over 750 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used biological feedback to support health behaviour change [6]. Results from our scoping review indicated that many of these interventions aimed to modify diet and physical activity behaviours based on data from glucose monitors, particularly among people with diabetes. Given the prevalence of interventions focusing on glucose monitoring, it is crucial to delve deeper into the role of biological feedback from CGMs, which are reshaping the way we understand and manage metabolic dysfunction.

In the rapidly evolving field of healthcare technologies, CGM stands out as particularly pivotal. In contrast to the intermittent data provided by traditional methods of self-monitoring of blood glucose with a glucometer, CGM offers the advantage of collecting real-time glucose data continuously, providing a comprehensive overview of glucose levels and trends. These data can be used to inform personalised behavioural and pharmacological interventions aimed at improving glycaemic control outcomes [10]. The significance of CGM is underscored by its dominance in the biosensor market [1]. CGM was initially introduced in 1999 as a diabetes management tool for people living with type 1 diabetes mellitus, reducing reliance on fingerpricks from glucometers [11]. Nearly a quarter-century later, CGM-based biological feedback is in use within a broader market, fuelling the rise of global digital health startups. These companies mainly target people without diabetes, people desiring weight loss, athletes, and health enthusiasts. Using advanced data analytics, individuals’ CGM data are integrated with their related behavioural, biological, and psychosocial data to offer real-time insights into how food, sleep, exercise, and stress impact their glucose trends with a goal of optimising health and performance.

Despite the increasing popularity of CGM as a health behaviour change tool, there is a paucity of literature characterising the use of CGM in behavioural intervention research [12, 13]. The use of CGM in research is diverse, with CGM wear periods ranging from a couple of days to several months, and includes variations in whether participants can view CGM data in real time, as well as differences in how this data is interpreted. This leaves a significant gap in the collective understanding of how wearable biosensors can be best employed to affect meaningful health behaviour change. As technology and healthcare continue to intersect, it is becoming increasingly essential to develop best practices that optimise the effectiveness of behavioural interventions leveraging these tools. Therefore, the objectives of this scoping review were to: (1) describe the patient populations, health behaviours, and health-related outcomes targeted by CGM-based biological feedback interventions, and (2) characterise the methods by which CGM is used as a behaviour change tool within RCTs aimed to support health behaviour change.



Our aims align with the indications for a scoping review, which include identifying what evidence is available and which knowledge gaps remain, investigating the methods of research conduct, and utilising the findings as precursor to the feasibility of a systematic review and meta-analysis; thus, justifying the scoping review approach [14]. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual [15] was used to guide the review methods. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist was followed [16]. The review was registered in Open Science Framework Registries ( [17].

Search strategy, selection criteria and review management

We collaborated with a research librarian to devise a search strategy based on our prior scoping review of 767 RCTs utilising biological feedback to support health behaviour change [6]. The prior search was conducted in June 2021 with no limitation of publication date. Here, relevant subject terms and text-words were included to capture behavioural interventions that incorporated feedback and biological measures, including glucose monitoring. For the current review, we updated the prior search and added terminology specific to CGM. The full search strategy has been included as Appendix 1. The updated search strategy was applied to articles published through January 2024, with no limit on year of publication. The search strategy was modified for the following electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Bibliographies of 17 additional reviews were also searched, and relevant articles were retained. There were no restrictions based on language.

Records returned by the search were deduplicated using EndNote 20 (Clarivate Analytics, Boston, MA) and added to the literature review software, DistillerSR® (Evidence Partners; Ottawa, Canada) for screening and data extraction. An additional deduplication process (using artificial intelligence) was applied in DistillerSR® to confirm all duplicate records were removed. Retracted articles were additionally identified using EndNote 20 and removed.

A multistep process was followed to determine study eligibility based on the following inclusion criteria: human adults ≥ 18 years, primary analyses of RCTs published in a peer-review journal or as a thesis or dissertation, and have at least one study arm receiving CGM-based biological feedback to support a health behaviour change. First, two trained reviewers completed an independent, single-entry title and abstract screening phase for initial eligibility. An artificial intelligence feature within DistillerSR® was used to confirm no abstracts were erroneously excluded. Then, full text versions of initially eligible articles were retrieved. Two trained reviewers completed a full text screening phase in which the preliminary inclusion criteria were confirmed and the use of CGM data to promote behaviour change was determined. If the use of CGM was unclear from the full text, an in-depth review of the study protocols available from trial registrations or published protocol was conducted. Articles not available in English were translated using Google Translate. Double-data entry by two independent reviewers for the full text screening phase was used for quality assurance. Conflicts were discussed between the two reviewers and resolved. If a conflict could not be resolved by the two reviewers, a third qualified reviewer made the final determination.

Data extraction

Extracted data were selected based on the Taxonomy of Technology-Enabled Self-Management Interventions [18] and CGM-specific reporting guidelines by Wagner and colleagues [19]. Data were also consistent with the three active components of personalised interventions: (1) sensing, (2) reasoning, and (3) acting [20]. Sensing describes the input parameters (ie, glucose) needed for the personalised intervention and how the measurement is performed (ie, CGM) [20]. Reasoning refers to providing feedback that is based on the input data (ie, biological feedback), including personalised behaviour recommendations or disease management guidance. Lastly, acting refers to how the biological feedback is communicated to the consumer to promote behaviour change (e.g., the mode, channel, frequency, and timing) [20]. Based on these criteria, a data extraction form was developed within DistillerSR®. The data extraction form was piloted by the three reviewers and refined prior to use. Extraction items included bibliographic data, participant characteristics, study design, CGM characteristics and wear durations, and CGM use (Appendix 2). Information related to the study design and treatment of all study arms were extracted, for reference. Results of included RCTs were not extracted as a synthesis of findings was not the objective of our scoping review [14], hence a risk of bias assessment was not completed. Double-data extraction of the included full text articles was then performed by the two primary reviewers. When necessary and if available, previously published study protocols or protocol details from clinical trial registries were reviewed. Data that were unobtainable have been described as “unclear.” Conflicts were discussed between the primary reviewers and resolved. If a conflict could not be resolved, the third reviewer made the final determination. The extracted data in DistillerSR® was downloaded and cleaned in OpenRefine [21].


The updated database search resulted in 5355 articles. After removing 1394 duplicates, 3961 articles were screened for eligibility. An additional 24 studies from our original scoping review, and 10 studies from citation searching, were screened. N = 31 eligible studies were identified (Fig. 1) [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. Characteristics of the included studies appear in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)

Table 1 Characteristics of included randomised controlled trials that use CGM as a behaviour change tool (N = 31)

Characteristics of CGM-based health behaviour RCTs

Included RCTs were conducted in 14 countries across 4 continents with the United States being the most frequently cited location (n = 6/31, 19%), followed closely by South Korea (n = 5/31, 16%). As displayed in Fig. 2, the first included RCT was published in 2006, with almost half of the RCTs (n = 15/31, 48%) being published in the most recent three years (2021–2023). Included studies ranged in duration from 2–52 weeks (median 13 weeks, IQR 12–26). Most of the studies were two arm RCTs (n = 20/31, 90%), with two 3-arm studies (n = 2/31, 7%) and one 4-arm study (n = 1/31, 3%). The total number of study participants ranged from N = 14–300 (median 70, IQR 40–149).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Overview of CGM-based health behaviour RCTs: study duration, targeted population, and number of sensor days (2006–2024). This figure illustrates that CGM-based health behaviour RCTs are increasing in frequency, duration, and number of days participants were asked to wear CGM sensors from 2006 to 2024. Since 2020, the target population has started to include participants without diabetes

Characteristics of the targeted populations

Out of the 31 studies, a majority (n = 20, 65%) included people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The remaining studies included people with pre-gestational or gestational diabetes (n = 6/31, 19%), type 1 diabetes (T1DM) (n = 4/31, 13%), overweight or obesity (without diabetes) (n = 4/31, 13%), and/or prediabetes (n = 1/31, 3%). Insulin use among study participants was mixed with n = 10/31 (32%) studies including both insulin users and non-users, n = 8/31 (26%) studies exclusively included non-insulin users, n = 6/31 (19%) exclusively included insulin users, and n = 3/31 (10%) studies did not specify participants' insulin use.

Design of health behaviour change interventions incorporating CGM

Targeted health behaviours were dietary intake (n = 27/31, 87%), physical activity (n = 16/31, 52%), and/or unspecified healthy lifestyle changes (n = 2/31, 6%). All the included studies were complex interventions (i.e., included multiple components) incorporating other behaviour change strategies in addition to CGM (n = 31/31, 100%). For example, one additional component present in most CGM-interventions was guidance (n = 28/31, 90%), delivered prospectively, in-real time, or retrospectively by a professional (diabetes educator (n = 7/28, 25%), researcher (n = 6/28, 21%), general healthcare provider (n = 5/28, 18%), healthcare specialist (n = 5/28, 18%), or unspecified provider (n = 5/28, 18%)) based on reviewing the participants’ CGM data. Prospective CGM-based guidance took place prior to the participants’ CGM wear period and involved a professional instructing participants on how to use their CGM glucose values to inform personalised dietary and physical activity changes. Real-time CGM-based guidance occurred during the CGM wear period. It used data generated from the CGM combined with physiological and/or behavioural data to generate intervention messages. Retrospective CGM-based guidance occurred after the CGM wear period, and involved a professional providing personalised recommendations for diet, physical activity, or unspecified therapy changes based on the participant’s CGM glucose values. In n = 6/31 (19%) of studies, participants received both prospective and retrospective CGM-based guidance. Most often (n = 19/31, 61%), participants received retrospective CGM-based guidance, while in n = 13/31 (42%), participants received prospective CGM-based guidance. In n = 3/13 (23%) of these studies, participants were instructed by a professional to follow a simple algorithm to make dietary or meal timing decisions based on the CGM-provided information. In two studies (n = 2/31, 6%) participants received real-time advice based on their CGM data. In the intervention arms, CGM was often combined with other intervention components that included health-related education (individual or group) (n = 20/31, 65%), diet tracking (n = 15/31, 48%), physical activity tracking (n = 11/31, 35%), and/or medication tracking (n = 5/31, 16%).

The comparison arms (N = 35) commonly included health-related education (n = 20/35, 57%), the use of a glucometer (n = 19/35, 54%), and/or diet tracking (n = 9/35, 26%). In seven comparison arms (n = 7/35, 20%), participants wore a CGM and received biological feedback; the distinguishing factors between the intervention and comparison arms were either the additional intervention components that were offered alongside CGM, and when the biological feedback was delivered (i.e., in real-time versus retrospectively). One study was a three-arm crossover trial, where all participants received 14 days of unblinded CGM and were randomised based on the order in which they consumed three standardised mixed dishes, varying in glycemic indices [28].

Characteristics of CGM device and wear

CGM manufacturer was specified in most studies (n = 27/31, 87%). Abbott (n = 14/31, 45%) was most frequently used, followed by Medtronic (n = 9/31, 29%), Dexcom (n = 3/31, 10%), and A. Menarini Diagnostics (n = 1/31, 3%). The Abbott Freestyle Libre (n = 12/31, 39%) was the most commonly used model of CGM. Single CGM wears ranged from 2–14 days in duration, depending on the manufacturer (Medtronic = 2–10 day wears, Abbott = 10–14 day wears, Dexcom = 7–10 day wears). Across the reporting studies (n = 30/31, 97%), the number of sensors worn ranged from 1–18 (median 3 wears, IQR 2–6), which resulted in a total number of CGM wear days of 2–252 days per intervention (median 28 days, IQR 14–63). For studies with multiple CGM wears (n = 24/30, 80%), CGM was worn continuously during the intervention in n = 11/24 (46%) studies; whereas, in the other n = 13/24 (54%) studies, participants wore CGM intermittently (median 3 wears, IQR 2–4) with breaks between wears (median 5 weeks, IQR 4–11).

Communication of CGM-based biological feedback

The communication of CGM-based biological feedback varied by whether CGM data were made visible (“unblinded”) or not visible (“blinded”) to participants during the CGM wear(s), and whether one-way (e.g., via one-way email) or two-way (e.g., via in-person discussion) delivery of CGM-based biological feedback was provided (Fig. 3). There were 3 predominant forms of communication: (1) via unblinded CGM device with one- or two-way communication (n = 17/31, 55%); (2) via blinded CGM device with one- or two-way communication (n = 6/31, 19%); and (3) via unblinded CGM device without one- or two-way communication (n = 7/31, 23%). One study was unclear about blinding but did provide two-way communication.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Delivery of CGM-based biological feedback in behaviour change interventions l (N = 31). This figure illustrates how studies delivered CGM-based biological feedback. The size of the band indicates the number of studies. “CGM blinding” describes whether CGM data were visible (unblinded) or were not visible (blinded) to a study participant in real-time during the CGM wear period(s). “Mode”, “Channel”, “Frequency”, and “Timing” are specific to how CGM-based biological feedback was communicated. “Frequency” was calculated by the number of one- or two-way feedback sessions divided by the number of sensors worn. “Unclear” was used when the study protocols did not provide related information. From this figure we can see that the plurality of studies used unblinded CGM, with device and two-way communication, which was usually in-person, at a frequency of 1 communication session per CGM sensor, which was provided after CGM wear

There was variability—and occasionally a lack of clarity—in how the feedback was conveyed to participants in terms of the mode, channel, frequency, and timing. Most commonly, when reported, CGM-based biological feedback was provided by the mode of CGM device and two-way communication (n = 12/31, 39%), through two-way communication alone (n = 7/31, 23%) or device alone (n = 7/31, 23%). Two-way communication was most often delivered in-person (n = 13/31, 42%) and/or over the phone (n = 6/31, 19%), and typically occurred after CGM wear (n = 19/31, 61%), once per CGM wear (n = 13/31; 42%). All feedback for one- and two-way communication was delivered by a human, as opposed to automated feedback (digital or artificial intelligence).

Targeted biological, behavioural and psychosocial outcomes

Multiple biological, behavioural, and psychosocial outcomes were reported in the included RCTs (Table 1). Biological outcomes were reported by all included studies and were often the primary outcome(s) (n = 25/31, 81%). Change in HbA1c was reported as an outcome in a majority of studies (n = 29/31, 94%). Other commonly reported biological outcomes were anthropometry (n = 18/31, 58%), time in range (n =16/31, 52%), hypoglycemia (n = 15/31, 48%), mean glucose (n = 11/31, 35%), lipids (n = 10/31, 32%), standard deviation of mean glucose (n = 9, 29%), and fasting glucose (n = 9/31, 29%). Seventeen studies (55%) included behavioural outcomes, which were most frequently diet (n = 11/35, 32%), physical activity (n = 10/31, 32%), and diabetes self-care (n = 5/31, 16%). Eight studies (n = 8/31, 26%) included psychosocial outcomes, including depression/anxiety (n = 6/31, 19%), and diabetes distress (n = 4/31, 13%). Six studies (19%) included intervention feasibility and acceptability as an outcome.


As we enter the precision health era, biosensors like CGM exemplify how biological feedback can potentially revolutionise health behaviour change interventions. To our knowledge, this is the first review to comprehensively explore the characteristics of CGM-based interventions that use biological feedback to support health behaviour change. We found that a significant portion of the included studies were published recently, with nearly half (N = 15/31, 48%) published within the last 3 years, indicating considerable growth of the CGM evidence base. Most studies involved people with T2DM and assessed HbA1c as an outcome. All were complex, multi-component interventions, often combining CGM with prospective or retrospective guidance; health-related education; and diet, physical activity, or medication tracking. CGM-based biological feedback was often delivered through in-person discussions after wearing CGM. These detailed understandings of CGM interventions—how they were operationalized, what they involved and what they targeted, alone and in combination with other behaviour change components—is an important first step to systematically understanding the relationship of these various elements with intervention effects.

The first objective of this review was to provide an overview of patient populations, health behaviours, and health-related outcomes associated with CGM-based biological feedback interventions. We found a lack of RCTs investigating the benefits of using CGM for behaviour change among individuals without diabetes, despite interests in this application of the technology in the digital health market. Nevertheless, research in this area appears to be on the rise, with four RCTs investigating the use of CGM-based biological feedback in individuals without diabetes since 2020, and one RCT including individuals with prediabetes published in 2023. CGM interventions primarily targeted diet and physical activity, aligning with general biological feedback [6], and precision health interventions [53]. Most interventions assessed HbA1c as an intervention outcome, likely due to the prevalence of diabetes in the studies. Future research should explore CGM's impact on other health biomarkers (e.g., weight, CVD risk factors), potentially benefiting individuals without diabetes. This research could provide a scientific basis for the goals of digital health startups focusing on outcomes like weight loss and chronic disease prevention.

The second objective of this review was to describe how CGM is used in biological feedback interventions. In most of the reviewed RCTs, CGM-measured glucose levels were used as input to generate guidance to improve healthy lifestyle behaviours, often through retrospective feedback by professionals on diet, activity, or disease management plans. However, there was considerable variation in how CGM-based feedback was delivered to participants, including differences in mode, channel, frequency, and timing. The noted variability in communication has been observed previously in another context [54] and may vary depending on the population, biomarker, and targeted outcome [6, 55]. More recent studies have provided CGM-based biological feedback from an unblinded CGM over longer durations, and have incorporated the use of one-way communication (e.g., via a mobile app). Nevertheless, the delivery of CGM-based guidance was mainly reliant on human interaction versus artificial intelligence. Consistent with precision health literature [53], a majority of personalised feedback in the present review relied on human interaction for developing and communicating CGM-based guidance. Despite human interaction being potentially more effective in achieving health outcomes [56], limitations like cost, availability, and reach limit widespread use. This highlights a potential research gap and opportunity for more novel approaches, such as artificial intelligence, to be integrated into mobile platforms to automate the delivery of meaningful, personalised biological feedback. An example of this was showcased in a recent RCT, where Guo and colleagues instructed intervention participants with T2DM to use a mobile app, which used artificial intelligence to analyse and integrate unblinded CGM data and participant self-reported diet and activity data to provide personalised feedback on foods and exercises that were least and most beneficial for the participant’s personal glucose management [33].

The main strength of this review was our application of a systematic method to capture and characterise CGM-based biological feedback interventions in unprecedented detail. This thorough mapping provides a starting point for further examination of individual intervention components and their impact, paving the way for inventive intervention designs. However, there are limitations. Our inclusion criteria focused only on RCTs and adults, with the purpose of laying the groundwork for a future meta-analysis of study effects based on commonly targeted outcomes (e.g., HbA1c) identified through this review. Some studies lacked clarity in how CGM was used and how intervention components were implemented, which we addressed by searching for protocols, corresponding with authors, and conducting a thorough search of clinical trial registries.

To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to describe how CGM is used within interventions that promote behaviour change. Despite the burgeoning interest in CGM and its application in the digital health market, academic evidence supporting the use of CGM-based interventions for behaviour change is mostly limited to people living with diabetes. To advance CGM-based precision health interventions, collaboration between academia and industry will be crucial. This collaboration can expedite the translation of research to real-world applications, enabling more effective data-driven interventions.

Based on the findings of this scoping review, we have identified a substantial body of literature on the effects of using CGM as a tool for biological feedback to reduce HbA1c levels. We plan to evaluate these effects in a subsequent meta-analysis (CRD42024514135). In addition to this, given the multi-component nature of these interventions, we plan to further investigate the behaviour change techniques that accompany CGM-based biological feedback interventions, with the long-term goal of identifying optimal combinations of behaviour change techniques to offer in combination with CGM to improve health outcomes (CRD42023398390). These future directions underscore the importance of our review, which serves not only as a current snapshot but also as a foundational resource for upcoming research efforts. This review has the potential to guide the design of future research to determine best practices for implementing CGM-based precision health interventions and contribute to guidelines for precision health interventions using biological feedback. Best practices can address key aspects such as the duration and frequency of sensor wear, communication of CGM data, and behaviour change techniques to deliver alongside CGM-based biological feedback. As biosensors like CGM play an expanding role in healthcare, rigorous evaluation is essential to inform public health and clinical guidelines.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this review is currently available in the Zenodo repository, The dataset contains references to the included articles, as well as the data extracted for each study.


  1. Biosensors: sense and sensibility - Chemical Society Reviews (RSC Publishing). Accessed 27 Nov 2023.

  2. Silvera-Tawil D, Hussain MS, Li J. Emerging technologies for precision health: An insight into sensing technologies for health and wellbeing. Smart Health. Published online March 1, 2020.

  3. Gambhir SS, Ge TJ, Vermesh O, Spitler R, Gold GE. Continuous health monitoring: An opportunity for precision health. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13(597):eabe5383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hickey KT, Bakken S, Byrne MW, et al. Precision health: Advancing symptom and self-management science. Nurs Outlook. 2019;67(4):462–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Madhusoodanan J. Health-care inequality could deepen with precision oncology. Nature. 2020;585(7826):S13–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Richardson KM, Jospe MR, Saleh AA, et al. Use of biological feedback as a health behavior change technique in adults: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e44359.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Richardson KM, Saleh AA, Jospe MR, Liao Y, Schembre SM. Using biological feedback to promote health behavior change in adults: protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2022;11(1):e32579.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Frank DL, Khorshid L, Kiffer JF, Moravec CS, McKee MG. Biofeedback in medicine: who, when, why and how? Ment Health Fam Med. 2010;7(2):85–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Biofeedback, Psychology - MeSH - NCBI. Accessed April 6, 2021.

  10. Merino J, Linenberg I, Bermingham KM, et al. Validity of continuous glucose monitoring for categorizing glycemic responses to diet: implications for use in personalized nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;115(6):1569–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Olczuk D, Priefer R. A history of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in self-monitoring of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2018;12(2):181–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maiorino MI, Signoriello S, Maio A, et al. Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on metrics of glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(5):1146–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Teo E, Hassan N, Tam W, Koh S. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in maintaining glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2022;65(4):604–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jospe MR, Richardson KM, Saleh A, Liao Y, Schembre S. Exploring the use of CGM-based biological feedback for improving health behaviors: A scoping review protocol. Published online January 26, 2023.

  18. Greenwood DA, Litchman ML, Isaacs D, et al. A new taxonomy for technology-enabled diabetes self-management interventions: results of an umbrella review. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;16(4):812–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wagner J, Tennen H, Wolpert H. Continuous glucose monitoring: A review for behavioral researchers. Psychosom Med. 2012;74(4):356–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. de Hoogh IM, Reinders MJ, Doets EL, Hoevenaars FPM, Top JL. Design Issues in Personalized Nutrition Advice Systems. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25: e37667.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Verborgh R, De Wilde M. Using OpenRefine. Packt Publishing; 2013.

  22. Ahn YC, Kim YS, Kim B, et al. Effectiveness of non-contact dietary coaching in adults with diabetes or prediabetes using a continuous glucose monitoring device: a randomized controlled trial. Healthcare. 2023;11(2):252.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Alfadhli E, Osman E, Basri T. Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as an educational tool for patients with gestational diabetes. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2016;8:48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Allen NA, Fain JA, Braun B, Chipkin SR. Continuous glucose monitoring counseling improves physical activity behaviors of individuals with type 2 diabetes: A randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;80(3):371–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Allen N, Whittemore R, Melkus G. A continuous glucose monitoring and problem-solving intervention to change physical activity behavior in women with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(11):1091–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Aronson R, Brown RE, Chu L, et al. IMpact of flash glucose Monitoring in pEople with type 2 Diabetes Inadequately controlled with non-insulin Antihyperglycaemic ThErapy (IMMEDIATE): A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023;25(4):1024–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chekima K, Noor MI, Ooi YBH, Yan SW, Jaweed M, Chekima B. Utilising a real-time continuous glucose monitor as part of a low glycaemic index and load diet and determining its effect on improving dietary intake, body composition and metabolic parameters of overweight and obese young adults: a randomised controlled trial. Foods. 2022;11(12):1754.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Chekima K, Wong BTZ, Noor MI, Ooi YBH, Yan SW, Chekima B. Use of a continuous glucose monitor to determine the glycaemic index of rice-based mixed meals, their effect on a 24 h glucose profile and its influence on overweight and obese young adults’ meal preferences. Foods. 2022;11(7):983.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Effects of patient-driven lifestyle modification using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the randomized open-label PDF study | Diabetes Care | American Diabetes Association. Accessed 6 Mar 2023.

  30. Cosson E, Hamo-Tchatchouang E, Dufaitre-Patouraux L, Attali JR, Pariès J, Schaepelynck-Bélicar P. Multicentre, randomised, controlled study of the impact of continuous sub-cutaneous glucose monitoring (GlucoDay) on glycaemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetes Metab. 2009;35(4):312–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cox DJ, Banton T, Moncrief M, et al. Glycemic excursion minimization in the management of type 2 diabetes: a novel intervention tested in a randomized clinical trial. BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2020;8(2):e001795.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Furler J, O’Neal D, Speight J, et al. Use of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring, at 3-month intervals, in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice (GP-OSMOTIC): a pragmatic, open-label, 12-month, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8(1):17–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guo M, Meng F, Guo Q, et al. Effectiveness of mHealth management with an implantable glucose sensor and a mobile application among Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes. J Telemed Telecare. 2023;29(8):632–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Hermanns N, Riveline JP, Rayman G. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(1):55–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jospe MR, de Bruin WE, Haszard JJ, Mann JI, Brunton M, Taylor RW. Teaching people to eat according to appetite - Does the method of glucose measurement matter? Appetite. 2020;151:104691.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee J, Lee MH, Park J, et al. FGM-based remote intervention for adults with type 1 diabetes: The FRIEND randomized clinical trial. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:1054697.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee YB, Kim G, Jun JE, et al. An integrated digital health care platform for diabetes management with AI-based dietary management: 48-week results from a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(5):959–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Meisenhelder-Smith J. The effects of American Diabetes Association (ADA) diabetes self-management education and continuous glucose monitoring on diabetes health beliefs, behaviors and metabolic control. USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 2006.

  39. Murphy HR, Rayman G, Lewis K, et al. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with diabetes: randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a1680.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Price DA, Deng Q, Kipnes M, Beck SE. Episodic real-time CGM use in adults with type 2 diabetes: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(7):2089–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Ruissen MM, Torres-Peña JD, Uitbeijerse BS, et al. Clinical impact of an integrated e-health system for diabetes self-management support and shared decision making (POWER2DM): a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2023;66(12):2213–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Sato J, Kanazawa A, Ikeda F, et al. Effect of treatment guidance using a retrospective continuous glucose monitoring system on glycaemic control in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. J Int Med Res. 2016;44(1):109–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schembre SM, Jospe MR, Bedrick EJ, et al. Hunger training as a self-regulation strategy in a comprehensive weight loss program for breast cancer prevention: a randomized feasibility study. Cancer Prev Res. 2022;15(3):193–201.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Taylor PJ, Thompson CH, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Wycherley TP, Wittert G, Brinkworth GD. Efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring to improve effects of a prescriptive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes: a pilot study. Diabetes Ther. 2019;10(2):509–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Tumminia A, Milluzzo A, Festa C, et al. Efficacy of flash glucose monitoring in pregnant women with poorly controlled pregestational diabetes (FlashMom): A randomized pilot study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;31(6):1851–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Voormolen DN, DeVries JH, Sanson RME, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring during diabetic pregnancy (GlucoMOMS): A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(8):1894–902.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wada E, Onoue T, Kobayashi T, et al. Flash glucose monitoring helps achieve better glycemic control than conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2020;8(1):e001115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Yan RN, Cai TT, Jiang LL, et al. Real-time flash glucose monitoring had better effects on daily glycemic control compared with retrospective flash glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes on premix insulin therapy. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:832102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Yeoh E, Lim BK, Fun S, et al. Efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose versus retrospective continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycaemic control in diabetic kidney disease patients. Nephrology (Carlton). 2018;23(3):264–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Yoo HJ, An HG, Park SY, et al. Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as a motivational device for poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;82(1):73–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zhang X, Jiang D, Wang X. The effects of the instantaneous scanning glucose monitoring system on hypoglycemia, weight gain, and health behaviors in patients with gestational diabetes: a randomised trial. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(5):5714–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang W, Liu Y, Sun B, et al. Improved HbA1c and reduced glycaemic variability after 1-year intermittent use of flash glucose monitoring. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):23950.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Mauch CE, Edney SM, Viana JNM, et al. Precision health in behaviour change interventions: a scoping review. Prev Med. 2022;163:107192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Waldron CA, van der Weijden T, Ludt S, Gallacher J, Elwyn G. What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(2):169–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hallquist MLG, Tricou EP, Ormond KE, et al. Application of a framework to guide genetic testing communication across clinical indications. Genome Med. 2021;13(1):71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Does access to human coaches lead to more weight loss than with AI coaches alone? Stanford Graduate School of Business. Accessed 13 Sep 2023.

Download references


The authors would like to thank the student interns for their support in screening articles for inclusion in the prior biological feedback scoping review, which laid the foundation for the present review.


P30CA051008 (PI: Weiner).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



MRJ, KR, AS, and SMS developed the search strategy. AS devised the search strategy to conform to each database, conducted the searches, and deduplicated the initial search results. MRJ and KR identified and reviewed the bibliographies of relevant reviews. MRJ, KR, and SMS developed and tested the screening and data extraction forms. MRJ and KR screened studies and performed data extraction. MRJ cleaned the data. MRJ and KR developed the data visualisations. MRJ, KR, and SM wrote the original draft. YL, AS, LB, JC, and KK reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Schembre.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MRJ reports ongoing consultation to ZOE. KMR reports ongoing consultation to WeightWatchers International, Inc. SMS reports consultation (unpaid) for Viocare. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


Appendix 1

Search strategy

Searches last conducted 1/16/2024.

Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL < 1946 to January 12, 2024 > 





blood glucose self-monitoring/



(glucose adj3 (monitor* or sensor or sensors or biosensor*)).tw



(CGM or CGMS or rtCGM or rt-CGM or isCGM or is-CGM).tw



("freestyle libre" or dexcom or "guardian sensor" or eversense).tw






glucose/ or blood glucose/ or



monitoring, physiologic/ or monitoring, ambulatory/ or physiological feedback/ or monitor*.tw



6 and 7



5 or 8






exp health behavior/



behavior control/



behavioral medicine/



behavioral research/



feeding behavior/



health, knowledge, attitudes, practice/



exp healthy lifestyle/



exp health promotion/



exp motivation/



risk reduction behavior/















exp inhibition, psychological/



"Treatment Adherence and Compliance"/



Patient Compliance/



patient participation/



public health/



public health practice/



preventive medicine/



prevention & control.fs



preventive health services/



exp primary prevention/



secondary prevention/



tertiary prevention/



smoking prevention/



harm reduction/



treatment outcome/ and (lifestyle/ or psychology.fs.)



((behavio?r* or lifestyle) adj3 (chang* or modif* or promot*)).tw



"health behavio?r*".tw



"healthy lifestyle".tw



(self adj3 (care or management or efficacy)).tw





((risk or harm or "sedentary behavio?r") adj3 reduc*).tw



"weight loss".tw



"weight control".tw



(smok* adj3 (behavio?r* or cessation or quit*)).tw



"self regulat*".tw



(motivated or motivation).tw



(adherence or compliance).tw



(prevention or preventive).tw



"health promotion".tw



(improv* adj3 (activit* or eating or diet* or health or fitness)).tw



((exercise or "physical activity" or diet* or eating or weight) adj3 (behavio?r* or chang* or maint* or motivat* or promot* or modif*)).tw



"public health".tw






9 and 57



limit 58 to medline



58 not 59



randomized controlled



controlled clinical






clinical trials as









61 or 62 or 63 or 64 or 65 or 66



exp animals/ not



67 not 68



59 and 69








71 or 72



60 and 73



70 or 74

2406 Embase





#55 AND [embase]/lim



#53 AND #54



'crossover procedure':de OR 'double-blind procedure':de OR 'randomized controlled trial':de OR 'single-blind procedure':de OR random*:de,ab,ti OR factorial*:de,ab,ti OR crossover*:de,ab,ti OR ((cross NEXT/1 over*):de,ab,ti) OR placebo*:de,ab,ti OR ((doubl* NEAR/1 blind*):de,ab,ti) OR ((singl* NEAR/1 blind*):de,ab,ti) OR assign*:de,ab,ti OR allocat*:de,ab,ti OR volunteer*:de,ab,ti



#9 AND #52



#10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29 OR #30 OR #31 OR #32 OR #33 OR #34 OR #35 OR #36 OR #37 OR #38 OR #39 OR #40 OR #41 OR #42 OR #43 OR #44 OR #45 OR #46 OR #47 OR #48 OR #49 OR #50 OR #51



'public health':ti,ab



((exercise OR 'physical activity' OR diet* OR eating OR weight) NEAR/3 (change OR behavior* OR behaviour* OR modif* OR maint* OR motivat* OR promot*)):ti,ab



(improv* NEAR/3 (activit* OR eating OR diet* OR health OR fitness)):ti,ab



'health promotion':ti,ab



prevention:ti,ab OR preventive:ti,ab



adherence:ti,ab OR compliance:ti,ab



motivated:ti,ab OR motivation:ti,ab



'self regulat*':ti,ab



(smok* NEAR/3 (behavior* OR behaviour* OR cessation OR quit*)):ti,ab



'weight control':ti,ab



'weight loss':ti,ab



((risk OR harm OR 'sedentary behavior' OR 'sedentary behaviour') NEAR/3 reduc*):ti,ab






(self NEAR/3 (care OR management OR efficacy)):ti,ab



'healthy lifestyle*':ti,ab



'health behavior*':ti,ab OR 'health behaviour*':ti,ab



((behavior* OR behaviour* OR lifestyle) NEAR/3 (change* OR modif* OR promot*)):ti,ab



'treatment outcome'/de AND (psychology:de OR 'lifestyle'/de)



'smoking prevention'/de



'tertiary prevention'/de



'secondary prevention'/de



'primary prevention'/de






'preventive health service'/de



prevention:lnk OR 'prevention and control'/de



'preventive medicine'/de



'public health'/de



'patient participation'/de



'patient compliance'/exp



'inhibition (psychology)'/exp






'self care'/de



'risk reduction'/de






'health promotion'/de



'lifestyle modification'/de



'healthy lifestyle'/de



'feeding behavior'/de



'behavior change'/de



'behavior control'/de



'health behavior'/exp






#5 OR #8



#6 AND #7



'physiologic monitoring'/de OR 'ambulatory monitoring'/de OR monitor*:ti,ab



'glucose blood level'/de OR 'glucose level'/de OR 'glucose'/de OR glucose:ti,ab



#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4



'freestyle libre':ti,ab OR dexcom:ti,ab OR 'guardian sensor':ti,ab OR eversense:ti,ab



cgm:ti,ab OR cgms:ti,ab OR rtcgm:ti,ab OR 'rt cgm':ti,ab OR iscgm:ti,ab OR 'is cgm':ti,ab



(glucose NEAR/3 (monitor* OR sensor OR sensing OR biosensor*)):ti,ab



'blood glucose monitoring'/de OR 'continuous glucose monitoring system'/de


Cochrane Library CENTRAL

Only exported database search results not trial registers for or ICTRP.


#1 MeSH descriptor: [Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring] this term only

#2 (glucose NEAR/3 (monitor* OR sensor OR sensors OR biosensor*)):ti,ab

#3 (CGM or CGMS or rtCGM or rt-CGM or isCGM or is-CGM):ti,ab

#4 ("freestyle libre" or dexcom or "guardian sensor" or eversense):ti,ab

#5 {OR #1-#4}

#6 [mh ^"glucose"] OR [mh ^"blood glucose"] OR glucose:ti,ab

#7 [mh ^"monitoring, physiologic"] OR [mh ^"monitoring, ambulatory"] OR [mh ^"physiological feedback"] OR monitor*:ti,ab

#8 #6 AND #7

#9 #5 OR #8

#10 MeSH descriptor: [Behavior] this term only

#11 MeSH descriptor: [Health Behavior] explode all trees

#12 MeSH descriptor: [Behavior Control] this term only

#13 MeSH descriptor: [Behavioral Medicine] this term only

#14 MeSH descriptor: [Behavioral Research] this term only

#15 MeSH descriptor: [Feeding Behavior] this term only

#16 MeSH descriptor: [Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice] this term only

#17 MeSH descriptor: [Healthy Lifestyle] explode all trees

#18 MeSH descriptor: [Health Promotion] explode all trees

#19 MeSH descriptor: [Motivation] explode all trees

#20 MeSH descriptor: [Risk Reduction Behavior] this term only

#21 MeSH descriptor: [Self Efficacy] this term only

#22 MeSH descriptor: [Self Care] this term only

#23 MeSH descriptor: [Self-Management] this term only

#24 MeSH descriptor: [Awareness] this term only

#25 MeSH descriptor: [Inhibition, Psychological] explode all trees

#26 MeSH descriptor: [Treatment Adherence and Compliance] this term only

#27 MeSH descriptor: [Patient Compliance] this term only

#28 MeSH descriptor: [Patient Participation] this term only

#29 MeSH descriptor: [Public Health] this term only

#30 MeSH descriptor: [Public Health Practice] this term only

#31 MeSH descriptor: [Preventive Medicine] this term only

#32 MeSH descriptor: [] explode all trees and with qualifier(s): [prevention & control—PC]

#33 MeSH descriptor: [Preventive Health Services] this term only

#34 MeSH descriptor: [Primary Prevention] explode all trees

#35 MeSH descriptor: [Secondary Prevention] this term only

#36 MeSH descriptor: [Tertiary Prevention] this term only

#37 MeSH descriptor: [Smoking Prevention] this term only

#38 MeSH descriptor: [Harm Reduction] this term only

#39 [mh ^"Treatment Outcome"] AND ([mh /PX] OR [mh ^Lifestyle])

#40 ((behavior* OR behaviour* OR lifestyle) NEAR/3 (change* OR modif* or promot*)):ti,ab

#41 (health NEXT (behavior* OR behaviour*)):ti,ab

#42 ("healthy lifestyle" or "healthy lifestyles"):ti,ab

#43 (self NEAR/3 (care OR management or efficacy)):ti,ab

#44 awareness:ti,ab

#45 ((risk or harm or "sedentary behavior" OR "sedentary behaviour") NEAR/3 reduc*):ti,ab

#46 "weight loss":ti,ab

#47 "weight control":ti,ab

#48 (smok* NEAR/3 (behavior* OR behaviour* OR cessation OR quit*)):ti,ab

#49 (self NEXT regulat*):ti,ab

#50 motivated:ti,ab or motivation:ti,ab

#51 adherence:ti,ab or compliance:ti,ab

#52 prevention:ti,ab OR preventive:ti,ab

#53 "health promotion":ti,ab

#54 (improv* NEAR/3 (activit* OR eating OR diet* OR health OR fitness)):ti,ab

#55 ((exercise OR "physical activity" or diet* or eating or weight) NEAR/3 (change OR behavior* OR behaviour* OR modif* or maint* or motivat* or promot*)):ti,ab

#56 "public health":ti,ab

#57 {OR #10-#56}

#58 #9 AND #57 in Trials






S44 AND S48



S45 OR S46 OR S47



TI trial OR AB trial



TI random* OR AB random*



(DE "Randomized Controlled Trials") OR (DE "Clinical Trials")



S5 AND S43



S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9 OR S10 OR S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S19 OR S20 OR S21 OR S22 OR S23 OR S24 OR S25 OR S26 OR S27 OR S28 OR S29 OR S30 OR S31 OR S32 OR S33 OR S34 OR S35 OR S36 OR S37 OR S38 OR S39 OR S40 OR S41 OR S42



TI "public health" OR AB "public health"



TI ((exercise OR "physical activity" OR diet* OR eating OR weight) N3 (behavio#r* OR chang* OR maint* OR motivat* OR promot* OR modif*)) OR AB ((exercise OR "physical activity" OR diet* OR eating OR weight) N3 (behavio#r* OR chang* OR maint* OR motivat* OR promot* OR modif*))



TI ( improv* N3 (activit* OR eating OR diet* OR health OR fitness)) OR AB ( improv* N3 (activit* OR eating OR diet* OR health OR fitness))



TI ( prevention OR preventive) OR AB ( prevention OR preventive)



TI ( adherence OR compliance) OR AB ( adherence OR compliance)



TI (motivated OR motivation) OR AB (motivated OR motivation)



TI "self regulat*" OR AB "self regulat*"



TI (smok* N3 (behavio#r* OR cessation or quit*)) OR AB (smok* N3 (behavio#r* OR cessation OR quit*))



TI "weight control" OR AB "weight control"



TI "weight loss" OR AB "weight loss"



TI ((risk OR harm OR "sedentary behavio#r") N3 reduc*) OR AB ((risk OR harm OR"sedentary behavio#r") N3 reduc*)



TI awareness OR AB awareness



TI "healthy lifestyle" OR AB "healthy lifestyle"



TI "health behavio#r*" OR AB "health behavio#r*"



TI ( self N3 (care OR management OR efficacy)) OR AB ( self N3 (care OR management OR efficacy))



TI ( (behavio#r* OR lifestyle) N3 (chang* OR modif* OR promot*)) OR AB ( (behavio#r* OR lifestyle) N3 (chang* OR modif* OR promot*))



(DE "Treatment Outcomes") OR (DE "Health Outcomes")



DE "Harm Reduction"



DE "Substance Use Prevention" OR DE "Relapse Prevention"



DE "Prevention"



DE "Public Health Services"



(DE "Public Health")



DE "Compliance"



DE "Treatment Compliance"



(DE "Awareness") OR (DE "Health Awareness")



DE "Self-Management"



DE "Self-Care"



DE "Self-Efficacy"



DE "Health Behavior Measures"



DE "Motivation" OR DE "Goals" OR DE "Incentives"



DE "Health Promotion"



DE "Lifestyle Changes"



DE "Health Attitudes"



DE "Behavior Modification"



DE "Behavioral Medicine"



DE "Health Behavior" OR DE "Health Risk Behavior" OR DE "Preventive Health Behavior"



DE "Behavior"



S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4



TI ("freestyle libre" OR dexcom OR "guardian sensor" OR eversense) OR AB ("freestyle libre" OR dexcom OR "guardian sensor" OR eversense)






TI (glucose N3 (monitor* OR sensor OR sensors OR biosensor*)) OR AB (glucose N3 (monitor* OR sensor OR sensors OR biosensor*))



(DE "Glucose" OR DE "Blood Sugar") AND (DE "Monitoring" OR DE "Medical Therapeutic Devices")


ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global

(ti(random*) OR ab(random*) OR ti(trial) OR ab(trial)) AND ((Exact("glucose monitoring") OR ((Exact("glucose") OR ti(glucose) OR ab(glucose)) AND (ti(monitor* OR sensor OR sensors OR biosensor*) OR ab(monitor* OR sensor OR sensors OR biosensor*)))) AND (Exact("behavior" OR "health behavior" OR "behavior modification" OR "eating behavior" OR "patient compliance" OR "self awareness" OR "disease prevention" OR "compliance" OR "motivation" OR "preventive medicine" OR "health promotion" OR "public health" OR "public health health sciences" OR "prevention" OR "harm reduction") OR ti((behavior OR behaviour OR lifestyle) NEAR/3 (chang* OR modif* OR promot*)) OR ab ti((behavior OR behaviour OR lifestyle) NEAR/3 (chang* OR modif* OR promot*)) OR ti(self NEAR/3 (care OR management OR efficacy)) OR ab(self NEAR/3 (care OR management OR efficacy)) OR ti(health p/0 behavior OR health p/0 behaviour) OR ab(health p/0 behavior OR health p/0 behaviour) OR ti(“healthy lifestyle”) OR ab(“healthy lifestyle”) OR ti(awareness) OR ab(awareness) OR ti((risk OR harm OR “sedentary behavior” OR “sedentary behaviour”) NEAR/3 reduc*) OR ab((risk OR harm OR “sedentary behavior” OR “sedentary behaviour”) NEAR/3 reduc*) OR ti(“weight loss”) OR ab(“weight loss”) OR ti(“weight control”) OR ab(“weight control”) OR ti(smok* NEAR/3 (behavior OR behaviour OR cessation OR quit*)) OR ab(smok* NEAR/3 (behavior OR behaviour OR cessation OR quit*)) OR ti(("self regulate" OR "self regulated" OR "self regulating" OR "self regulation" OR "self regulatory")) OR ab(("self regulate" OR "self regulated" OR "self regulating" OR "self regulation" OR "self regulatory")) OR ti(motivated OR motivation) OR ab(motivated OR motivation) OR ti(adherence OR compliance) OR ab(adherence OR compliance) OR ti(prevention OR preventive) OR ab(prevention OR preventive) OR ti(improv* NEAR/3 (activit* OR eating OR diet* OR health OR fitness)) OR AB(improv* NEAR/3 (activit* OR eating OR diet* OR health OR fitness)) OR ti((exercise OR “physical activity” OR diet* OR eating OR weight) NEAR/3 (behavior OR behaviour OR chang* OR maint* OR motivat* OR promot* OR modif*)) OR ab((exercise OR “physical activity” OR diet* OR eating OR weight) NEAR/3 (behavior OR behaviour OR chang* OR maint* OR motivat* OR promot* OR modif*)) OR ti(“public health”) OR ab(“public health”))).

Appendix 2

Extracted data

  1. 1.

    Bibliographical data (title, authors, year of publication, location)

  2. 2.

    Participant characteristics (population, insulin use, number of participants, % female, mean age, age range, HbA1c eligibility criteria, baseline HbA1c)

  3. 3.

    Primary and secondary outcomes

  4. 4.

    Targeted behaviours

  5. 5.

    Duration of intervention

  6. 6.

    Description of Intervention and comparison arms

  7. 7.

    Detailed description of CGM use

    1. a.

      Brand and model of CGM

    2. b.

      Blinded versus unblinded CGM

    3. c.

      Duration of CGM sensor

    4. d.

      Number of CGM sensors worn

    5. e.

      Duration between CGM wear sessions (if worn more than once)

    6. f.

      Communication of CGM results beyond the device (if any)

    7. g.

      Who provided CGM feedback (e.g., human, artificial intelligence)

    8. h.

      Channel used to provide CGM feedback (e.g., in-person, app, email)

    9. i.

      Frequency of CGM feedback

    10. j.

      Timing of CGM feedback (e.g., during or after CGM wear)

    11. k.

      What (if anything) was personalised based on CGM data (e.g., diet, physical activity)

    12. l.

      CGM metrics shared or interpreted (e.g., time in range, mean glucose)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jospe, M.R., Richardson, K.M., Saleh, A.A. et al. Leveraging continuous glucose monitoring as a catalyst for behaviour change: a scoping review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 21, 74 (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: