eHealth profile of patients with diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Digital health technology can be useful to improve the health of patients with diabetes, to support patient-centered care, and self-management. In this cross-sectional study, we described the eHealth profile of patients with diabetes, based on their use of digital health technology, and its association with sociodemographic characteristics. Methods We used data from the “Qualité Diabète Valais” cohort study, conducted in one region of Switzerland (Canton Valais) since 2020. Participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes completed questionnaires on sociodemographic characteristics and on the use of digital health technology. We defined eHealth profiles based on three features, i.e., ownership or use of 1) internet-connected devices (smartphone, tablet, or computer), 2) mHealth applications, and 3) connected health tools (activity sensor, smart weight scale, or connected blood glucose meter). We assessed the association between sociodemographic characteristics and participants’ eHealth profiles using stratified analyses and logistic regression models. Results 398 participants (38% women) with a mean age of 65 years were included. The vast majority (94%) were Swiss citizens or bi-national; 14% had a primary level education, 51% a secondary level, and 32% a tertiary level. Some 75% of participants had type 2 diabetes. Some 90% of the participants owned internet-connected devices, 43% used mHealth applications, and 44% owned a connected health tool. Older age and a lower educational level were associated with lower odds of all features of the eHealth profile. Conclusions While most participants owned internet-connected devices, only about half of them used mHealth applications or owned connected health tools. Older participants and those with a lower educational level were less likely to use digital health technology. eHealth implementation strategies need to consider these sociodemographic patterns among patients with diabetes. Key messages • eHealth use among patients with diabetes was associated with younger age and higher education. • eHealth strategies need to consider that patients at higher risk of complications are those who use eHealth the least.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".