MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288076254 · doi:10.2196/28153

Diabetes Self-management Apps: Systematic Review of Adoption Determinants and Future Research Agenda

2022· review· en· W4288076254 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 · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLSelf-managementScopusThematic analysisDiabetes managementMedicineMEDLINEMobile appsCredibilityApp storeInclusion (mineral)PsychologyDiabetes mellitusPsychological interventionNursingType 2 diabetesQualitative researchWorld Wide WebComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most diabetes management involves self-management. Effective self-management of the condition improves diabetes control, reduces the risk of complications, and improves patient outcomes. Mobile apps for diabetes self-management (DSM) can enhance patients' self-management activities. However, they are only effective if clinicians recommend them, and patients use them. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the determinants of DSM apps' use by patients and their recommendations by health care professionals (HCPs). It also outlines the future research agenda for using DSM apps in diabetes care. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the factors affecting the adoption of DSM apps by both patients and HCPs. Searches were performed using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, ACM, and Xplore digital libraries for articles published from 2008 to 2020. The search terms were diabetes, mobile apps, and self-management. Relevant data were extracted from the included studies and analyzed using a thematic synthesis approach. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. We identified a range of determinants related to patients' and HCPs' characteristics, experiences, and preferences. Young female patients were more likely to adopt DSM apps. Patients' perceptions of the benefits of apps, ease of use, and recommendations by patients and other HCPs strongly affect their intention to use DSM apps. HCPs are less likely to recommend these apps if they do not perceive their benefits and may not recommend their use if they are unaware of their existence or credibility. Young and technology-savvy HCPs were more likely to recommend DSM apps. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential of DSM apps to improve patients' self-care activities and diabetes outcomes, HCPs and patients remain hesitant to use them. However, the COVID-19 pandemic may hasten the integration of technology into diabetes care. The use of DSM apps may become a part of the new normal.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.384 · 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