Supporting the Management of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus With Comprehensive Self-Tracking: Mixed Methods Study of Wearable Sensors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an increasing health risk for pregnant women as well as their children. Telehealth interventions targeted at the management of GDM have been shown to be effective, but they still require health care professionals for providing guidance and feedback. Feedback from wearable sensors has been suggested to support the self-management of GDM, but it is unknown how self-tracking should be designed in clinical care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate how to support the self-management of GDM with self-tracking of continuous blood glucose and lifestyle factors without help from health care personnel. We examined comprehensive self-tracking from self-discovery (ie, learning associations between glucose levels and lifestyle) and user experience perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study where women with GDM (N=10) used a continuous glucose monitor (CGM; Medtronic Guardian) and 3 physical activity sensors: activity bracelet (Garmin Vivosmart 3), hip-worn sensor (UKK Exsed), and electrocardiography sensor (Firstbeat 2) for a week. We collected data from the sensors, and after use, participants took part in semistructured interviews about the wearable sensors. Acceptability of the wearable sensors was evaluated with the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) questionnaire. Moreover, maternal nutrition data were collected with a 3-day food diary, and self-reported physical activity data were collected with a logbook. RESULTS: We found that the CGM was the most useful sensor for the self-discovery process, especially when learning associations between glucose and nutrition intake. We identified new challenges for using data from the CGM and physical activity sensors in supporting self-discovery in GDM. These challenges included (1) dispersion of glucose and physical activity data in separate applications, (2) absence of important trackable features like amount of light physical activity and physical activities other than walking, (3) discrepancy in the data between different wearable physical activity sensors and between CGMs and capillary glucose meters, and (4) discrepancy in perceived and measured quantification of physical activity. We found the body placement of sensors to be a key factor in measurement quality and preference, and ultimately a challenge for collecting data. For example, a wrist-worn sensor was used for longer compared with a hip-worn sensor. In general, there was a high acceptance for wearable sensors. CONCLUSIONS: A mobile app that combines glucose, nutrition, and physical activity data in a single view is needed to support self-discovery. The design should support tracking features that are important for women with GDM (such as light physical activity), and data for each feature should originate from a single sensor to avoid discrepancy and redundancy. Future work with a larger sample should involve evaluation of the effects of such a mobile app on clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03941652; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03941652.
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 | 0,016 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».