Understanding Patient Beliefs in Using Technology to Manage Diabetes: Path Analysis Model From a National Web-Based Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With 425 million individuals globally living with diabetes, it is critical to support the self-management of this life-threatening condition. However, adherence and engagement with existing technologies are inadequate and need further research. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to develop an integrated belief model that helps identify the significant constructs in predicting intention to use a diabetes self-management device for the detection of hypoglycemia. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes living in the United States were recruited through Qualtrics to take a web-based questionnaire that assessed their preferences for a device that monitors their tremors and alerts them of the onset of hypoglycemia. As part of this questionnaire, a section focused on eliciting their response to behavioral constructs from the Health Belief Model, Technology Acceptance Model, and others. RESULTS: =27.19; P<.001) by 4 main constructs. The most significant constructs were perceived usefulness (β=.33; P<.001) and perceived health threat (β=.55; P<.001) followed by cues to action (β=.17; P<.001) and a negative effect from resistance to change (β=-.19; P<.001). Older age (β=.025; P<.001) led to an increase in their perceived health threat. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals to use such a device, they need to perceive it as useful, perceive diabetes as life-threatening, regularly remember to perform actions to manage their condition, and exhibit less resistance to change. The model predicted the intention to use a diabetes self-management device as well, with several constructs found to be significant. This mental modeling approach can be complemented in future work by field-testing with physical prototype devices and assessing their interaction with the device longitudinally.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".