Physical Exercise versus Drug-based Interventions in Better Glycemic Control

Management of Type 2 Diabetes Through Physical Therapy: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Student Full Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Full Name
Instructor Full Name
Due Date
Management of Type 2 Diabetes Through Physical Therapy: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Introduction: Nursing Practice Problem and PICOT Question
Adopting physical activity therapy is critical for maintaining a healthy glucose balance in the body and improving positive health outcomes in diabetic patients. Physical exercises consist of structured movements that enhance energy consumption to provide optimal benefits to patients. Each individual’s needs determine the physician’s recommendations for maximum benefits in terms of length of the condition, body weight, and body fats. In essence, such structured exercises can either be moderate or intense. The current paper seeks to determine whether exercise results in better glycemic control in comparison with drug-based interventions. Thus, in patients with type 2 diabetes, does exercise result in glycemic control compared to drug therapy as a primary intervention? To address the question, the paper focuses on four critical peer-reviewed articles.
Background of Articles
It is unclear whether a lifestyle intervention is likely to maintain glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Based on this premise, Johansen et al. (2017) tested whether an intensive lifestyle intervention can result in equivalent glycemic control compared to standard care. The research question in the article is; “can an intensive lifestyle intervention attain glycemic control comparable with standard care in patients with type 2 diabetes?” (Johansen et al., 2017). The authors compared standard methods of care with intensive interventions in terms. Hence, glycemic control outcomes in a similar approach (randomized controlled trial). Heisknen et al. (2018) hypothesized that while exercise training improves whole-body insulin sensitivity, its effects on pancreatic fat content and beta-cell dysfunction remain unknown. Therefore, the motive of the study was to evaluate the effects of exercise on pancreatic fat and beta-cell function.
In a different study, Miyauchi et al. (2016) compared the efficacy of activity motor versus pedometer in exercise therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes. The study’s primary goals were to improve hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in type 2 diabetes patients. Miyauchi et al.’s (2016) work is essential to the current project because it informs the extent to which physical therapy can influence positive health outcomes. Further, taking a different approach to the topic, Heden et al. (2018) aimed to establish comparisons between adipose tissue interstitial glucose and venous blood glucose during a postprandial resistance training exercise in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The source is essential for the current paper because it provides a different view of which exercise impacts health outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.
How do these four articles support the nurse practice issue you chose?
The article by Johansen et al. (2017) is closely related to the current article’s topic (PICOT question) on several fronts. For instance, both question the efficacy of physical exercise in establishing glycemic control. Thus, since the work reports on primary outcomes, it provides findings to the current paper. For instance, the conclusion that lifestyle change intervention provided a change in glycemic control that did not reach the criterion for equivalence (Johansen et al., 2017, p. 643) helps the current paper interrogate the precise measures that can either enhance or reduce the benefits of physical exercise. With a particular focus on glycemic control, the current paper will add to Johansen et al.’s (2017) findings to inform care providers of efficient alternative interventions.
Heden et al. (2018) provide a different and unique approach to determining the impact of physical exercises by comparisons between adipose tissue glucose and venous blood glucose. The approach can also be used in the study designs of the current project as an iterative aspect to validifying research outcomes on the current clinical issue. Were the approach be adopted by Miyauchi et al. (2016), for instance, it would be a substitute for measuring blood hemoglobin to identify the impact of exercise on glucose in the body.
Heisknen et al. (2018) also provide a unique approach to measuring the influence of exercise by looking at pancreatic fat and the function of the beta-cell. The findings, therefore, widen the scope of alternatives through which the current plan can be informed. Across all four articles, despite the differences in approaches, outcomes inform the current PICOT question in anticipation of the current study’s findings.
Method of Study
The articles differ in the methods and approaches chosen to establish findings. In the study by Miyauchi et al. (2016), a sample population of 187 participants was utilized. The participants (with type 2 diabetes) were divided into two groups: the activity monitor group (n=92) and the pedometer group (n=95) with the primary goal of improving hemoglobin. The experiment’s target was to set 8,000 steps per day besides 20 minutes of moderate-intensity exercises. Participants’ blood samples were taken on the first day and two to six months into the exercise for hemoglobin observation.
In contrast, Johansen et al. (2017) focused on 98 adult participants with non-insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes. The study was executed in New Zealand and Denmark between April 2015 and August 2016. The participants were divided into the lifestyle change group (n=64) and the standard care group (n=34). All participants were subjected to standard care involving counseling and standardized and blinded therapy. However, the lifestyle group was also subjected to five to six weeks of aerobic sessions lasting between 30 to 60 minutes, out of which r...