Technology-Supported Integrated Care Innovations to Support Diabetes and Mental Health Care: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND For individuals living with diabetes and its psychosocial comorbidities (eg, depression, anxiety, and distress), there remains limited access to interprofessional, integrated care that includes mental health support, education, and follow-up. Health technology, broadly defined as the application of organized knowledge or skill as software, devices, and systems to solve health problems and improve quality of life, is emerging as a means of addressing these gaps. There is thus a need to understand how such technologies are being used to support, educate, and help individuals living with co-occurring diabetes and mental health distress or disorder. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this scoping review was to (1) describe the literature on technology-enabled integrated interventions for diabetes and mental health; (2) apply frameworks from the Mental Health Commission of Canada and World Health Organization to elucidate the components, type, processes, and users of technology-enabled integrated interventions for diabetes and mental health; and (3) map the level of integration of interventions for diabetes and mental health. METHODS We searched 6 databases from inception to February 2022 for English-language, peer-reviewed studies of any design or type that used technology to actively support both diabetes and any mental health distress or disorder in succession or concurrently among people with diabetes (type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, and gestational diabetes). Reviewers screened citations and extracted data including study characteristics and details about the technology and integration used. RESULTS We included 24 studies described in 38 publications. These studies were conducted in a range of settings and sites of care including both web-based and in-person settings. Studies were mostly website-based (n=13) and used technology for wellness and prevention (n=16) and intervention and treatment (n=15). The primary users of these technologies were clients and health care providers. All the included intervention studies (n=20) used technology for clinical integration, but only 7 studies also used the technology for professional integration. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this scoping review suggest that there is a growing body of literature on integrated care for diabetes and mental health enabled by technology. However, gaps still exist with how to best equip health care professionals with the knowledge and skills to offer integrated care. Future research is needed to continue to explore the purpose, level, and breadth of technology-enabled integration to facilitate an approach to overcome or address care fragmentation for diabetes and mental health and to understand how health technology can further drive the scale-up of innovative integrated interventions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".