App Features for Type 1 Diabetes Support and Patient Empowerment: Systematic Literature Review and Benchmark Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research in type 1 diabetes management has increased exponentially since the irruption of mobile health apps for its remote and self-management. Despite this fact, the features affect in the disease management and patient empowerment are adopted by app makers and provided to the general population remain unexplored. Objective: To study the gap between literature and available apps for type 1 diabetes self-management and patient empowerment and to discover the features that an ideal app should provide to people with diabetes. Methods: The methodology comprises systematic reviews in the scientific literature and app marketplaces. We included articles describing interventions that demonstrated an effect on diabetes management with particular clinical endpoints through the use of mobile technologies. The features of these apps were gathered in a taxonomy of what an ideal app should look like to then assess which of these features are available in the market. Results: The literature search resulted in 231 matches. Of these, 55 met the inclusion criteria. A taxonomy featuring 3 levels of characteristics was designed based on 5 papers which were selected for the synthesis. Level 1 includes 10 general features (Personalization, Family support, Agenda, Data record, Insulin bolus calculator, Data management, Interaction, Tips and support, Reminders, and Rewards) Level 2 and Level 3 included features providing a descriptive detail of Level 1 features. Eighty apps matching the inclusion criteria were analyzed. None of the assessed apps fulfilled the features of the taxonomy of an ideal app. Personalization (70/80, 87.5%) and Data record (64/80, 80.0%) were the 2 top prevalent features, whereas Agenda (5/80, 6.3%) and Rewards (3/80, 3.8%) where the less predominant. The operating system was not associated with the number of features (P=.42, F=.81) nor the type of feature (P=.20, χ2=11.7). Apps were classified according to the number of level 1 features and sorted into quartiles. First quartile apps had a regular distribution of the ten features in the taxonomy whereas the other 3 quartiles had an irregular distribution. Conclusions: There are significant gaps between research and the market in mobile health for type 1 diabetes management. While the literature focuses on aspects related to gamification, rewarding, and social communities, the available apps are focused on disease management aspects such as data record and appointments. Personalized and tailored empowerment features should be included in commercial apps for large-scale assessment of potential in the self-management of the disease.
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 | 0.027 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".