Considerations for the Development of Mobile Phone Apps to Support Diabetes Self-Management: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increased research interest in the use of mobile phone apps to support diabetes management. However, there are divergent views on what constitute the minimum standards for inclusion in the development of mobile phone apps. Mobile phone apps require an evidence-based approach to development which will consequently impact on their effectiveness. Therefore, comprehensive information on developmental considerations could help designers and researchers to develop innovative and effective patient-centered self-management mobile phone apps for diabetes patients. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the developmental considerations adopted in trials that engaged mobile phone applications for diabetes self-management. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was implemented across 5 electronic databases; Medline, Scopus, Social Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINALHL) and supplemented by reference list from identified studies. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Critical appraisal checklist for trials. Information on developmental factors (health behavioral theory, functionality, pilot testing, user and clinical expert involvements, data privacy and app security) were assessed across experimental studies using a template developed for the review. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (10 randomized controlled trials and 1 quasi-experimental trial) that fitted the inclusion criteria were identified. All the included studies had the functionality of self-monitoring of blood glucose. However, only some of them included functions for data analytics (7/11, 63.6%), education (6/11, 54.5%) and reminder (6/11, 54.5%). There were 5/11(45.5%) studies with significantly improved glycosylated hemoglobin in the intervention groups where educational functionality was present in the apps used in the 5 trials. Only 1 (1/11, 9.1%) study considered health behavioral theory and user involvement, while 2 (2/11, 18.1%) other studies reported the involvement of clinical experts in the development of their apps. There were 4 (4/11, 36.4%) studies which referred to data security and privacy considerations during their app development while 7 (7/12, 63.6%) studies provided information on pilot testing of apps before use in the full trial. Overall, none of the studies provided information on all developmental factors assessed in the review. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of elaborate and detailed information in the literature regarding the factors considered in the development of apps used as interventions for diabetes self-management. Documentation and inclusion of such vital information will foster a transparent and shared decision-making process that will ultimately lead to the development of practical and user-friendly self-management apps that can enhance the quality of life for diabetes patients.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".