Context: In this systematic review, we focus on the clinical impact of digital tools for providing health coaching, education, and facilitating behavior in patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. Our approach was designed to provide insights for clinicians and health care systems that are considering adopting such digital tools. This dataset provides summary information related to the systematic review. Evidence Acquisition: We searched the CINAHL, Scopus, and Ovid/MEDLINE databases using PRISMA guidelines for studies that reported digital coaching strategies for management and prevention of type 2 diabetes published from January 2014 to June 2019. Articles were reviewed by 2 independent blinded reviewers. Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria. Evidence Synthesis: We found that 20 of 21 studies in our analysis showed statistically significant improvements in at least one measure of diabetes control including HbA1c, weight loss, fasting blood glucose, and BMI. Studies that reported weight loss percentage from baseline at 1 year reported values ranging from −3.04% to −8.98%, similar to outcomes with traditional coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program (N = 4). Additionally, all studies that included a comparison group of in-person or telephone-based coaching showed statistically better or similar outcomes in the digital coaching group (N = 5). Conclusions: The evidence reported in this systematic review suggests that digital health coaching offers a promising strategy for long-term management and prevention of type 2 diabetes in diverse populations with similar benefits to in-person or telephone-based health coaching. We argue that, with the potential to treat large numbers of individuals in diverse geographic locations, digital coaching offers a promising solution to the rapid increase in diabetes prevalence.

We searched the CINAHL, Scopus, and Ovid/MEDLINE databases using PRISMA guidelines for studies that reported digital coaching strategies for management and prevention of type 2 diabetes published from January 2014 to June 2019. Articles were reviewed by 2 independent blinded reviewers. Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria. We combined results and summarized them in an evidence table to clarify the differences between coaching components, outcomes, and populations.