Smartphone Apps for Diabetes Medication Adherence: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is one of the leading noncommunicable chronic diseases globally. In people with diabetes, blood glucose levels need to be monitored regularly and managed adequately through healthy lifestyles and medications. However, various factors contribute to poor medication adherence. Smartphone apps can improve medication adherence in people with diabetes, but it is not clear which app features are most beneficial. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review and evaluate high-quality apps for diabetes medication adherence, which are freely available to the public in Android and Apple app stores and present the technical features of the apps. METHODS: We systematically searched Apple App Store and Google Play for apps that assist in diabetes medication adherence, using predefined selection criteria. We assessed apps using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and calculated the mean app-specific score (MASS) by taking the average of app-specific scores on 6 dimensions, namely, awareness, knowledge, attitudes, intention to change, help-seeking, and behavior change rated on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree). We used the mean of the app's performance on these 6 dimensions to calculate the MASS. Apps that achieved a total MASS mean quality score greater than 4 out of 5 were considered to be of high quality in our study. We formulated a task-technology fit matrix to evaluate the apps for diabetes medication adherence. RESULTS: We identified 8 high-quality apps (MASS score≥4) and presented the findings under 3 main categories: characteristics of the included apps, app features, and diabetes medication adherence. Our framework to evaluate smartphone apps in promoting diabetes medication adherence considered physiological factors influencing diabetes and app features. On evaluation, we observed that 25% of the apps promoted high adherence and another 25% of the apps promoted moderate adherence. Finally, we found that 50% of the apps provided low adherence to diabetes medication. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that almost half of the high-quality apps publicly available for free did not achieve high to moderate medication adherence. Our framework could have positive implications for the future design and development of apps for patients with diabetes. Additionally, apps need to be evaluated using a standardized framework, and only those promoting higher medication adherence should be prescribed for better 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 | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".