Effectiveness of the Family Portal Function on the Lilly Connected Care Program (LCCP) for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study With Propensity Score Matching
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a major health concern worldwide. Family member engagement in diabetes self-management education programs can improve patients' diabetes management. However, there is limited evidence that the family portal on diabetes management apps is effective in the glycemic control of patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of family support through the family portal function on Lilly Connected Care Program (LCCP) platform. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with type 2 diabetes recruited to the LCCP platform from September 1, 2018, to August 31, 2019. Propensity score matching was used to match family (group A) and non-family (group B) portal use groups with similar baseline characteristics. The patients were followed up with for 12 weeks. The main objectives were differences in mean fasting blood glucose, proportion of patients achieving fasting blood glucose target <7mmol/L, mean postprandial blood glucose, proportion of patients achieving postprandial blood glucose target <10mmol/L, proportion of patients achieving both fasting blood glucose <7mmol/L and postprandial blood glucose <10mmol/L, self-monitoring of blood glucose frequency at week 12 and the number of diabetes education courses patients completed during the 12 weeks. Moreover, logistic regression analysis was used to explore the baseline factors which may be associated with the use of family portal, and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 6582 adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin therapy were enrolled in the study. Overall, 6.1% (402/6582) of the patients chose to engage their family members to use the family portal. Two groups of 394 patients were well-matched regarding baseline characteristics. After matching, mean fasting blood glucose and postprandial blood glucose at week 12 were significantly lower in group A than in group B (fasting blood glucose: 7.12 mmol/L, SD 1.70 vs 7.42 mmol/L, SD 1.88, respectively, P=.02; postprandial blood glucose: 8.56 mmol/L, SD 2.51 vs 9.10 mmol/L, SD 2.69, respectively, P=.002). When comparing group A to group B, the proportion of patients achieving both fasting blood glucose <7mmol and postprandial blood glucose <10mmol/L at week 12 (46.8% vs 39.4%, respectively, P=.04), self-monitoring of blood glucose frequency at week 12 (8.92 times per week, SD 6.77 vs 8.02 times per week, SD 5.97, respectively, P=.05) and number of diabetes education courses completed in 12 weeks (23.00, IQR9.00-38.00 vs 15.00, IQR 4.00-36.00, respectively, P<.001) was higher. Additionally, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that higher age (OR=0.987, 95% CI 0.978-0.996, P=.006) and higher baseline fasting blood glucose (OR=0.914, 95% CI 0.859-0.972, P=.004) were correlated with less use of the family portal function, while increased baseline self-monitoring of blood glucose frequency (OR=1.022, 95% CI 1.012-1.032], P<.001) as well as increased education courses (OR=1.026, 95% CI 1.015-1.036, P<.001) were associated with more use of the family portal function. CONCLUSIONS: Family support through the LCCP family portal is effective for glycemic control and self-management behavior improvement in type 2 diabetes patients.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».