Physician-Authored Feedback in a Type 2 Diabetes Self-management App: Acceptability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasingly prevalent in society, in part because of behavioral issues, with sedentary behavior, reduced exercise, and the consumption of foods with a high glycemic index being major contributors. There is evidence for the efficacy of mobile apps in promoting behavior change and lifestyle improvements in people with T2D. Many mobile phone apps help to monitor the condition of people with T2D and inform them about their health. Some of these digital interventions involve patients using apps on their own or in conjunction with health care professionals. Objective This study aimed to test the acceptability of receiving app-based, daily physician feedback for patients with T2D that is informed by the continuous monitoring of their activity, food choices, and glucose profiles, with the aim of encouraging healthier behavior. The GLOOK! app was designed and developed by an academic research team and pilot-tested at an Australian public hospital. Methods A total of 15 patients diagnosed with T2D wore a glucose monitor and an Apple Watch for 12 days. The uploaded data were integrated into the GLOOK! app on the patients’ smartphones, which also enabled the recording of activity and consumed food. A physician provided daily feedback to each individual through the app based on their data from each of the 12 days. At the beginning and end of the study, data were collected on vital signs, anthropometry, hemoglobin A1c level, fructosamine level, and fasting lipids level. Participants were also interviewed at the beginning and end of the study to assess the acceptability of the intervention and its potential impact on promoting positive behavior change. Results Over the 12 days of the study, there was a significant reduction of 0.22% (P=.004) in hemoglobin A1c level. There were favorable changes in fructosamine and lipid fractions; however, none reached significance. There was also a fall of 0.65 kg in body weight and falls in blood pressure and pulse rate that did not reach significance. Patient feedback on the GLOOK! system was positive. Of the 15 participants, 13 (87%) were enthusiastic about continuing to use the app system if some usability and reliability aspects were improved. All participants regarded the personalized physician feedback as supportive and helpful in understanding their own health behavior. Of the 15 participants, 4 (27%) felt that using the system encouraged long-term behavior changes. Conclusions A mobile app system that provides people with T2D daily, physician-generated, personalized feedback can produce favorable changes in glycemic and cardiovascular risk parameters—even in the short term—and encourage better self-management of their condition. Study participants found the experience of using the mobile app system acceptable and were motivated to establish longer-term lifestyle improvements through behavior changes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".