Smartphone Apps for Surveillance of Gestational Diabetes: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developments and evolutions in the information and communication technology sector have provided a solid foundation for the emergence of mobile health (mHealth) in recent years. The cornerstone to management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is the self-management of glycemic indices, dietary intake, and lifestyle adaptations. Given this, it is readily adaptable to incorporation of remote monitoring strategies involving mHealth solutions. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine and assess the available smartphone apps which enable self-monitoring and remote surveillance of GDM with a particular emphasis on the generation of individualized patient feedback. METHODS: Five databases were searched systematically for any studies evaluating mHealth-supported smartphone solutions for GDM management from study inception until January 2022. The studies were screened and assessed for eligibility of inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Ultimately, 17 studies were included involving 1871 patients across 11 different countries. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) conceptual framework was adhered to for data extraction and categorization purposes. RESULTS: All studies analyzed as part of this review facilitated direct uploading of data from the handheld glucometer to the downloaded patient-facing smartphone app. Glycemic data were captured by all studies and were reassuringly found to be either improved or noninferior to extant models of hospital-based care. Feedback was delivered in either an automated fashion through in-app communication from the health care team or facilitated through bidirectional communication with the app and hospital portal. Although resource utilization and cost-effective analyses were reported in some studies, the results were disparate and require more robust analysis. Where patient and staff satisfaction levels were evaluated, the response was overwhelmingly positive for mHealth smartphone-delivered care strategies. Emergency cesarean section rates were reduced; however, elective cesarean sections were comparatively increased among studies where the mode of delivery was assessed. Most reviewed studies did not identify any differences in maternal, perinatal, or neonatal health when app-based care was compared with usual in-person review. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive scoping review highlights the feasibility, reliability, and acceptability of app-assisted health care for the management of GDM. Although further exploration of the economic benefit is required prior to implementation in a real-world clinical setting, the prospect of smartphone-assisted health care for GDM is hugely promising.
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 | 0.016 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".