MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581834825 · doi:10.2196/diabetes.6643

Smartphone App Use for Diabetes Management: Evaluating Patient Perspectives

2017· article· en· W2581834825 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsUsabilityMobile appsSmartphone appInternet privacyDownloadDiabetes managementDisease managementDiabetes mellitusSmartphone applicationChronic diseaseSelf-managementHealth management systemPopulationMobile deviceMedicineApp storeComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMultimediaHuman–computer interactionType 2 diabetesAlternative medicineIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Finding novel ways to engage patients in chronic disease management has led to increased interest in the potential of mobile health technologies for the management of diabetes. There is currently a wealth of smartphone apps for diabetes management that are available for free download or purchase. However, the usability and desirability of these apps has not been extensively studied. These are important considerations, as these apps must be accepted by the patient population at a practical level if they are to be utilized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gain insight into patient experiences related to the use of smartphone apps for the management of type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had previously (or currently) used apps to manage their diabetes were eligible to participate. Participants (n=12) completed a questionnaire in which they were required to list the names of preferred apps and indicate which app functions they had used. Participants were given the opportunity to comment on app functions that they perceived to be missing from the current technology. Participants were also asked whether they had previously paid for an app and whether they would be willing to do so. RESULTS: MyFitnessPal and iBGStar were the apps most commonly listed as the best available on the market. Blood glucose tracking, carbohydrate counting, and activity tracking were the most commonly used features. Ten participants fulfilled all eligibility criteria, and indicated that they had not encountered any one app that included all of the functions that they had used. The ability to synchronize an app with a glucometer or insulin pump was the most common function that participants stated was missing from current app technology. One participant had previously paid for a diabetes-related app and the other 9 participants indicated that they would be willing to pay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite dissatisfaction with the currently available apps, there is interest in using these tools for diabetes management. Adapting existing technology to better meet the needs of this patient population may allow these apps to become more widely utilized.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it