MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362523007 · doi:10.1186/s12902-023-01321-6

Impact of digital health interventions for adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus on health literacy: a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4362523007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aurélia Naoko Naef, Christoph Wilhelm, Hürrem Tezcan‐Güntekin, Volker Eric Amelung

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Endocrine Disorders · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMedicineMEDLINECochrane LibraryPsychological interventionSystematic reviewHealth literacyCritical appraisalFamily medicineGrey literatureMeta-analysisGerontologyAlternative medicineHealth careNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that living with diabetes mellitus type 1 (T1DM) in adolescent age is particularly challenging and difficult to manage. A high level of health literacy is important to prevent and avoid debilitating complications. Despite the increasing prevalence and incidence of T1DM by adolescent and the large use of digital health interventions, little is known about the association between this use and health literacy. This systematic review provides an overview on the impact of digital health interventions for adolescents with type 1 diabetes on health literacy and derive recommendations for further research. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in five databases in Medline (Medline, PubMed + via PubMed), The Cochrane Library, EMBASE (via Ovid), Web of Science and PsycINFO from 2011 to 2021. In addition, grey literature searches were conducted in Google Scholar, OAlster and Trip. Relevant studies that have been missed by electronic and hand-searching strategies were searched in the reference lists of all included studies. The review followed PRISMA guidelines. Two researchers independently screened abstracts for initial eligibility and applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the relevant full-text articles. Quality was assessed using the tools RoB2 Cochrane, ROBINS I, NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) for primary studies and Amstar-2 for secondary studies. RESULTS: Out of 981 studies, 22 were included in the final review. Most primary studies included in this review were judged as moderate overall risk of bias or with some concerns and most of the secondary studies as critically low quality reviews. Our findings suggest that the interplay of health care providers (HCP) and patients through social media helps the management of the disease. This corroborates Bröder et al.' (2017) dimension of 'communication and interactions' in their concept of health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: For adolescents with T1DM, social media may be a specific and beneficial intervention for an improved communication and interaction with their HCP. Further research should investigate what specific form of social media suits best for which adolescents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on the 15th of November 2021 on Prospero (reg. NR: CRD42021282199).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Endocrine DisordersSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207