This study was conducted as a narrative review to provide an integrative and interpretive overview of existing evidence on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in diabetes patient education. A narrative review approach was intentionally selected to allow the inclusion of heterogeneous study designs, emerging AI-driven educational technologies, and qualitative studies. Unlike a systematic review, the aim was not to identify all available evidence but to synthesize and interpret key themes and trends across relevant studies in the field.
To enhance transparency and rigor in literature selection, structured search strategies and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used, together with PRISMA-informed documentation of the selection process. These elements were used to improve clarity and systematic documentation and do not imply that this study was a systematic review.
A literature search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Springer and was supplemented by Google Scholar. In Google Scholar, results were sorted by relevance and time, and only the first 200 records were evaluated to reduce the likelihood of incorporating non-peer-reviewed or low-quality materials. The final literature search was conducted in September 2025.
Articles published between 2015 and 2025 were considered eligible, reflecting the rapid advancement of AI technologies in healthcare and patient education over the past decade. Publications from 2025 included peer-reviewed articles available online at the time of the search. The search strategy employed combinations of the following keywords: “Artificial Intelligence,” “Self-management,” “Chatbot,” “Mobile Application,” “Patient Education,” and “Diabetes.” Boolean operators (“And,” “Or”) were applied, and search syntax was adapted to the specific requirements of each database to enhance retrieval precision.
The initial search identified 500 records. After duplicate removal using reference management software, records were independently screened by two researchers (H.H. and A.N.) based on titles, abstracts, and keywords. Full-text articles deemed potentially eligible were subsequently reviewed. Disagreements between researchers were resolved through discussion; when necessary, decisions were guided by the aim of the review and the relevance of the study to AI-based diabetes patient education. Studies were included if they examined AI-based tools applied to diabetes patient education or self-management and were published as quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, review, or applied research articles in peer-reviewed journals in either English or Persian. Exclusion criteria included studies focusing on diseases other than diabetes; AI applications limited to prediction, diagnosis, or treatment without an educational or self-management component; AI interventions unrelated to diabetes self-management; theoretical or opinion-based papers lacking experimental evidence; non-scientific publications; letters to the editor; conference abstracts without full-text availability; and publications in languages other than English or Persian.
The initial search identified 500 records. After duplicate removal, 426 records remained for title and abstract screening. Of these, 321 records were excluded due to irrelevance to the review topic, leaving 105 articles for full-text assessment. Full texts of 82 articles were accessible, of which 19 were excluded for the following reasons: language other than English or Persian (n = 5), insufficient empirical data (n = 6), lack of direct focus on patient education (n = 4), and theoretical or opinion-based papers without experimental evidence (n = 4). Ultimately, 63 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this narrative review. The article selection process was conducted independently by two researchers (H.H. and A.N.), with disagreements resolved through discussion.
Most studies included in this review were conducted in technologically advanced countries. Therefore, the applicability of these findings to low- and middle-income countries remains uncertain. Limited digital infrastructure, lower internet accessibility, language barriers, and reduced digital health literacy may hinder implementation. Future research should specifically evaluate AI-based educational interventions in resource-constrained settings.
A total of 63 articles were included in this study. The analysis prioritized conceptual contributions and practical implications rather than comparative effect estimation. A qualitative thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze the studies. Relevant data were compared and grouped to identify recurring patterns, concepts, and themes related to the role of AI in diabetes patient education. Themes were refined through repeated review and discussion, and findings were compared and integrated to develop a comprehensive understanding of current applications, benefits, and challenges of AI-based educational interventions in diabetes care.
Several limitations should be acknowledged. As a narrative review, this study is inherently subject to potential selection and interpretive bias. The predominance of studies conducted in developed countries may limit the generalizability of findings to low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, the rapid pace of AI innovation may render some findings time-sensitive and may influence the reported effectiveness of AI-based interventions. As this study involved secondary analysis of previously published data without direct patient involvement, ethical approval was not required; nevertheless, principles of academic integrity, transparency, and appropriate citation were observed.
Formal quality appraisal or risk-of-bias assessment was not conducted because the aim of this review was to provide a broad overview of emerging AI applications in diabetes education rather than evaluate intervention effectiveness. Consequently, the strength of evidence across studies varies considerably, and conclusions should be interpreted accordingly.
The study selection process was documented using PRISMA-informed procedures. The research question was formulated using the PICO framework (Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome):
P (Population): Individuals with diabetes
I (Intervention): Artificial intelligence technologies
C (Comparison): Conventional methods
O (Outcome): Improvement in self-management skills