Participatory Development of an Integrated, eHealth-Supported, Educational Care Pathway (Diabetes Box) for People With Type 2 Diabetes: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) tremendously affects patient health and health care globally. Changing lifestyle behaviors can help curb the burden of T2D. However, health behavior change is a complex interplay of medical, behavioral, and psychological factors. Personalized lifestyle advice and promotion of self-management can help patients change their health behavior and improve glucose regulation. Digital tools are effective in areas of self-management and have great potential to support patient self-management due to low costs, 24/7 availability, and the option of dynamic automated feedback. To develop successful eHealth solutions, it is important to include stakeholders throughout the development and use a structured approach to guide the development team in planning, coordinating, and executing the development process. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop an integrated, eHealth-supported, educational care pathway for patients with T2D. METHODS: The educational care pathway was developed using the first 3 phases of the Center for eHealth and Wellbeing Research roadmap: the contextual inquiry, the value specification, and the design phase. Following this roadmap, we used a scoping review about diabetes self-management education and eHealth, past experiences of eHealth practices in our hospital, focus groups with health care professionals (HCPs), and a patient panel to develop a prototype of an educational care pathway. This care pathway is called the Diabetes Box (Leiden University Medical Center) and consists of personalized education, digital educational material, self-measurements of glucose, blood pressure, activity, and sleep, and a smartphone app to bring it all together. RESULTS: The scoping review highlights the importance of self-management education and the potential of telemonitoring and mobile apps for blood glucose regulation in patients with T2D. Focus groups with HCPs revealed the importance of including all relevant lifestyle factors, using a tailored approach, and using digital consultations. The contextual inquiry led to a set of values that stakeholders found important to include in the educational care pathway. All values were specified in biweekly meetings with key stakeholders, and a prototype was designed. This prototype was evaluated in a patient panel that revealed an overall positive impression of the care pathway but stressed that the number of apps should be restricted to one, that there should be no delay in glucose value visualization, and that insulin use should be incorporated into the app. Both patients and HCPs stressed the importance of direct automated feedback in the Diabetes Box. CONCLUSIONS: After developing the Diabetes Box prototype using the Center for eHealth and Wellbeing Research roadmap, all stakeholders believe that the concept of the Diabetes Box is useful and feasible and that direct automated feedback and education on stress and sleep are essential. A pilot study is planned to assess feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness in more detail.
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 | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".