MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933849486 · doi:10.2196/11590

Experiences of Patients With a Diabetes Self-Care App Developed Based on the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model: Before-and-After Study

2019· article· en· W2933849486 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMobile appsMobile phoneDiabetes mellitusPsychologySelf careProcess (computing)Physical activityPhoneApplied psychologyMedicineGerontologyInternet privacyComputer sciencePhysical therapyHealth careWorld Wide WebEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mobile phones have been actively used in various ways for diabetes self-care. Mobile phone apps can manage lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, and medication without time or place restrictions. A systematic review has found these apps to be effective in reducing blood glucose. However, the existing apps were developed and evaluated without a theoretical framework to explain the process of changes in diabetes self-care behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the diabetes self-care app that we developed by measuring differences in diabetes self-care factors between before and after using the app with the Information-Motivation-Behavioral skills model of Diabetes Self-Care (IMB-DSC). METHODS: We conducted a single-group pre- and postintervention study with a convenience sample of diabetes patients. A total of 38 adult patients with diabetes who had an Android smartphone were recruited. After conducting a preliminary survey of those who agreed to participate in the study, we provided them with a manual and a tutorial video about the diabetes self-care app. The app has functions for education, recommendations, writing a diary, recording, goal setting, sharing, communication, feedback, and interfacing with a glucometer, and it was applied for 4 weeks. We measured the general characteristics of participants, their history of diabetes self-care app usage, IMB-DSC factors, and blood glucose levels. The IMB-DSC factors of information, personal motivation, social motivation, behavioral skills, and behaviors were measured using an assessment tool consisting of 87 items extracted from the Diabetes Knowledge Test, third version of the Diabetes Attitude Scale, Diabetes Family Behavior Checklist, and Diabetes Self-Management Assessment Report Tool. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 43.87 years. A total 30 participants out of 38 (79%) had type 2 diabetes and 8 participants (21%) had type 1 diabetes. The most frequently used app function was recording, which was used by 34 participants out of 38 (89%). Diabetes self-care behaviors (P=.02) and diabetes self-care social motivation (P=.05) differed significantly between pre- and postintervention, but there was no significant difference in diabetes self-care information (P=.85), diabetes self-care personal motivation (P=.57), or diabetes self-care behavioral skills (P=.89) between before and after using the diabetes self-care app. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes self-care social motivation was significantly improved with our diabetes self-care app by sharing experiences and sympathizing with other diabetes patients. Diabetes self-care behavior was also significantly improved with the diabetes self-care app by providing an interface with a glucometer that removes the effort of manual input. Diabetes self-care information, diabetes self-care personal motivation, and diabetes self-care behavioral skills were not significantly improved. However, they will be improved with additional offline interventions such as reflective listening and simulation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.312 · 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