Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Endocrinol.

Sec. Clinical Diabetes

This article is part of the Research TopicTechnologies for Diabetes, volume IIIView all 10 articles

Impact of Virtual Patient Engagement on Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Observational Study from GluCare Hybrid Care Model

Provisionally accepted
Hala  ZakariaHala Zakaria1*Geethu  PaulGeethu Paul2Joelle  DebsJoelle Debs1Juman  AliJuman Ali1Adam  AlmarzooqiAdam Almarzooqi1Ali  HashemiAli Hashemi1Ihsan  AlmarzooqiIhsan Almarzooqi1,2
  • 1Glucare Integrated Diabetes Center, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
  • 2GluCare Integrated Diabetic Center, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Abstract Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a chronic metabolic disorder requiring sustained glycemic control to prevent complications. Traditional in-clinic care often limits patient engagement to periodic visits, leaving gaps in continuous diabetes management. Digital health interventions, including virtual two way patient engagement between patients and the care team may enhance adherence and outcomes. However, the impact of different engagement modalities on glycemic control remains underexplored. This study evaluates the impact of virtual patient engagement within the GluCare hybrid care model on glycemic control in individuals with T2DM. Methods: This retrospective observational study included T2DM patients(n=125) enrolled in GluCare's hybrid care program. Participants were stratified into two groups based on glycemic control: controlled (HbA1c <7%) and poorly controlled (HbA1c ≥7%). Patient engagement was categorized into inbound (patient-initiated) and outbound (provider-initiated) interactions. Clinical and metabolic parameters, including HbA1c, blood pressure, lipid profile, inflammatory markers, renal function, and anthropometric measures, were assessed at baseline and 12 months. Results: Participants in the poorly controlled group exhibited a mean HbA1c reduction of −2.4 % (p < 0.001), while controlled patients improved −0.3 % (p < 0.001). This magnitude exceeds the −0.3% to −0.5 % typically reported for digital-only interventions, indicating clinically meaningful improvement. The higher number of virtual interactions was associated with improved glycemic control (β = –0.007; 95% CI: –0.011 to –0.002; p = 0.003) and remained significant after adjusting for age, BMI, medication use, and glycemic control group (β = –0.006; 95% CI: –0.010 to –0.002; p = 0.001). Both controlled and poorly controlled groups achieved similar HbA1c levels at 12 months (p = 0.205). Engagement peaked at 3 months and declined thereafter, with outbound interactions consistently exceeding inbound ones However, Poorly controlled group more prescribed on GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists (59.6%), insulin (75%) and statin therapy (56.8%) compared to the controlled group.. Conclusion: Virtual patient engagement, particularly provider-initiated interactions, plays a crucial role in optimizing glycemic control and improving metabolic outcomes in T2DM. Hybrid care models that integrate continuous remote monitoring with periodic in-clinic visits offer a viable approach to sustaining patient adherence.

Keywords: Virtual patient engagement, glycemic control, type 2 diabetes, hybrid care model, HbA1c, Digital Health, remote monitoring

Received: 29 Aug 2025; Accepted: 04 Nov 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Zakaria, Paul, Debs, Ali, Almarzooqi, Hashemi and Almarzooqi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Hala Zakaria, hala@glucare.health

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.