MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4399467970 · doi:10.2196/51491

Development of a Novel Mobile Health App to Empower Young People With Type 1 Diabetes to Exercise Safely: Co-Design Approach

2024· article· en· W4399467970 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vinutha B. Shetty, Leanne Fried, Heather C Roby, Wayne H K Soon, Rebecca Nguyen, A. Ong, Mohinder Jaimangal, Jacinta Francis, Nirubasini Paramalingam, Donna Cross, Elizabeth A. Davis

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Diabetes · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésType 2 diabetesMobile appsDiabetes mellitusGerontologyPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceInternet privacyWorld Wide WebEndocrinology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Blood glucose management around exercise is challenging for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Previous research has indicated interventions including decision-support aids to better support youth to effectively contextualize blood glucose results and take appropriate action to optimize glucose levels during and after exercise. Mobile health (mHealth) apps help deliver health behavior interventions to youth with T1D, given the use of technology for glucose monitoring, insulin dosing, and carbohydrate counting. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a novel prototype mHealth app to support exercise management among youth with T1D, detail the application of a co-design process and design thinking principles to inform app design and development, and identify app content and functionality that youth with T1D need to meet their physical activity goals. METHODS: A co-design approach with a user-centered design thinking framework was used to develop a prototype mHealth app "acT1ve" during the 18-month design process (March 2018 to September 2019). To better understand and respond to the challenges among youth with diabetes when physically active, 10 focus groups were conducted with youth aged 13-25 years with T1D and parents of youth with T1D. Thereafter, we conducted participatory design workshops with youth to identify key app features that would support individual needs when physically active. These features were incorporated into a wireframe, which was critically reviewed by participants. A beta version of "acT1ve" was built in iOS and android operating systems, which underwent critical review by end users, clinicians, researchers, experts in exercise and T1D, and app designers. RESULTS: Sixty youth with T1D, 14 parents, 6 researchers, and 10 clinicians were engaged in the development of "acT1ve." acT1ve included key features identified by youth, which would support their individual needs when physically active. It provided advice on carbohydrates and insulin during exercise, information on hypoglycemia treatment, pre- and postexercise advice, and an educational food guide regarding exercise management. "acT1ve" contained an exercise advisor algorithm comprising 240 pathways developed by experts in diabetes and exercise research. Based on participant input during exercise, acT1ve provided personalized insulin and carbohydrate advice for exercise lasting up to 60 minutes. It also contains other features including an activity log, which displays a complete record of the end users' activities and associated exercise advice provided by the app's algorithm for later reference, and regular reminder notifications for end users to check or monitor their glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: The co-design approach and the practical application of the user-centered design thinking framework were successfully applied in developing "acT1ve." The design thinking processes allowed youth with T1D to identify app features that would support them to be physically active, and particularly enabled the delivery of individualized advice. Furthermore, app development has been described in detail to help guide others embarking on a similar project. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001414101; https://tinyurl.com/mu9jvn2d.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,486
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,399
Écart entre enseignants0,354 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR DiabetesMême sujetMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207