Technology-Assisted Self-Monitoring of Lifestyle Behaviors and Health Indicators in Diabetes: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring is key to successful behavior change in diabetes and obesity, and the use of traditional paper-based methods of self-monitoring may be time-consuming and burdensome. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore participant experiences while using technology-assisted self-monitoring of lifestyle behaviors and health indicators among overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Qualitative data collected from the intervention group of a 6-month, three-arm (control, paper diary, and technology-assisted self-monitoring groups) randomized clinical trial were analyzed. Study participants in the intervention group monitored their diet, exercise, and weight using the LoseIt! app, and their blood glucose levels using a glucometer and the Diabetes Connect app. Semistructured group discussions were conducted at 6 weeks (n=10) from the initiation of the behavioral lifestyle intervention and again at 6 months (n=9). All group interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Using a combination of thematic and comparative analysis approaches, two trained professionals coded the transcriptions independently and then discussed and concluded common themes for the 6-week and 6-month discussions separately. RESULTS: The sample (n=10), which primarily involved African American participants (n=7) and female participants (n=8), had a mean age of 59.4 years. The following eight themes emerged: (1) perceived benefits of technology-assisted self-monitoring; (2) perceived ease of use (eg, barriers: technical difficulties and lack of self-discipline; facilitators: help from family, friends, and the program); (3) use of technology-assisted self-monitoring; (4) facilitators of engaging in healthy lifestyle behaviors (eg, visualization and awareness of calorie input/expenditure); (5) positive lifestyle change; (6) barriers of engaging in healthy lifestyle behaviors (eg, event influence); (7) learning curve; and (8) monitored data sharing. The first six of these themes were shared between the 6-week and 6-month timepoints, but the codes within these themes were not all the same and differed slightly between the two timepoints. These differences provide insights into the evolution of participant thoughts and perceptions on using technology for self-monitoring and subsequent behavioral lifestyle changes while participating in lifestyle interventions. The findings from the 6-week and 6-month data helped to paint a picture of participant comfort and the integration of technology and knowledge overtime, and clarified participant attitudes, difficulties, behavioral processes, and modifications, as well as health indicators that were experienced throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were some barriers, participants were able to identify various individual and external facilitators to adjust to and engage in technology-assisted self-monitoring, and it was concluded that the technology-assisted self-monitoring approach was beneficial, safe, and feasible to use for positive lifestyle change. These patient perspectives need to be considered in future research studies when investigating the effectiveness of using technology-assisted self-monitoring, as well as in clinical practice when recommending technology-assisted self-monitoring of lifestyle behaviors and health indicators to improve health outcomes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".