Evaluating Acceptability of Cellular Glucose Meter Use in a Diabetes Care Management Program: A Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Diabetes is difficult to manage and many patients require additional support to control their disease. Increasingly, connected health technologies, such as secure patient portals, are being used in diabetes care management programs to provide such support. Uploading self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) recordings to patient portals is an increasingly common strategy to support improved monitoring. Recently introduced cellular glucose meters can be used to automate the upload process immediately after testing. Automatic uploading eliminates the need for patients to connect meters to a computer and enables support teams to monitor uploads in real-time and in turn, provide in-the-moment support as needed. Despite their potential to improve diabetes management, the use of cellular glucose meters is not without challenges. Although designed for simplicity and seamless use, meters sometimes require a degree of technological skill that certain patients may not possess. Patients may also struggle to understand how to best utilize functionality to help manage their disease. When perceived ease of use or usefulness is low, utilization of the technology may result in unanticipated consequences. For this reason, patient acceptability must be evaluated before cellular glucose meters can be implemented more broadly. Objective: To evaluate patient acceptability of cellular glucose meter use in a diabetes care management program. Methods: Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes received cellular glucose meters and were enrolled in a care management program. Certified Diabetes Educators (CDEs) monitored uploaded SMBG recordings. The CDEs provided structured support and coaching to participants and interacted with their medical providers as necessary. After 1 month of the program, focus groups and semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with the participants. Audio recordings of each were transcribed verbatim and the resulting transcripts were thematically coded. An a priori code list, based on the Technology Acceptance Model, was used to guide the analysis and further codes were added to represent other themes from the transcripts. Results: Participants with Type 1 (n=6) or Type 2 (n=10) diabetes reported that the cellular glucose meter was both easy to use and useful. The meter’s most favorable features were the automatic and seamless uploading of SMBG recordings, SMBG tracking and sharing tools, and tips provided through the meter. The support provided by the CDEs through the management program was also identified as being helpful. Identified areas of improvement included providing training on the meter and program, improved consistency and efficiency of the meter’s functional performance, and additional meter functionality. Conclusions: All participants reported a positive overall experience using the meter as part of the care management program. Future work should focus on long-term patient acceptability and efficacy of using cellular glucose meters in diabetes management programs and the subsequent effects on clinical service utilization and provider workflow.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».