Exploration of Users’ Perspectives and Needs and Design of a Type 1 Diabetes Management Mobile App: Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the popularity of mobile phones, mobile apps have great potential for the management of diabetes, but the effectiveness of current diabetes apps for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is poor. No study has explored the reasons for this deficiency from the users' perspective. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to explore the perspectives and needs of T1DM patients and diabetes experts concerning a diabetes app and to design a new T1DM management mobile app. METHODS: A mixed-methods design combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews was used to explore users' needs and perspectives. Experts were surveyed at 2 diabetes conferences using paper questionnaires. T1DM patients were surveyed using Sojump (Changsha ran Xing InfoTech Ltd) on a network. We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with adult T1DM patients or parents of child patients who had ever used diabetes apps. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for theme identification. RESULTS: The expert response rate was 63.5% (127/200). The respondents thought that the reasons for app invalidity were that patients did not continue using the app (76.4%, 97/127), little guidance was received from health care professionals (HCPs; 73.2%, 93/127), diabetes education knowledge was unsystematic (52.8%, 67/127), and the app functions were incomplete (44.1%, 56/127). A total of 245 T1DM patient questionnaires were collected, of which 21.2% (52/245) of the respondents had used diabetes apps. The reasons for their reluctance to use an app were limited time (39%, 20/52), complicated operations (25%, 13/52), uselessness (25%, 13/52), and cost (25%, 13/52). Both the experts and patients thought that the most important functions of the app were patient-doctor communication and the availability of a diabetes diary. Two themes that were useful for app design were identified from the interviews: (1) problems with patients' diabetes self-management and (2) problems with current apps. In addition, needs and suggestions for a diabetes app were obtained. Patient-doctor communication, diabetes diary, diabetes education, and peer support were all considered important by the patients, which informed the development of a prototype multifunctional app. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-doctor communication is the most important function of a diabetes app. Apps should be integrated with HCPs rather than stand-alone. We advocate that doctors follow up with their patients using a diabetes app. Our user-centered method explored comprehensively and deeply why the effectiveness of current diabetes apps for T1DM was poor and what T1DM patients needed for a diabetes app and provided meaningful guidance for app design.
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 | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".