MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389180078 · doi:10.2196/47145

Patient and Physician Perspectives on the Use of a Connected Ecosystem for Diabetes Management: International Cross-Sectional Observational Study

2023· article· en· W4389180078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Benito‐Garcia, Julio Vega, Eric J. Daza, Wei-Nchih Lee, Adee Kennedy, Jean-Marc Chantelot

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSanofi
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineFamily medicineGermanCross-sectional studyHealth careDiabetes mellitusMEDLINEDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and their health care teams is important for optimal control of the disease and outcomes. Digital technologies could potentially tie together several health care-related devices and platforms into connected ecosystems (CES), but attitudes about CES are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed convenience samples of patients and physicians to better understand which patient characteristics are associated with higher likelihoods of (1) participating in a potential CES program, as self-reported by patients with T2DM and (2) clinical benefit from participation in a potential CES program, as reported by physicians. METHODS: Adults self-reporting a diagnosis of T2DM and current insulin use (n=197), and 33 physicians whose practices included ≥20% of such patients, were enrolled in the United States, France, and Germany. We surveyed both groups about the likelihood of patient participation in a CES. We then examined the associations between patients' clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and this likelihood. We also described characteristics of patients likely to clinically benefit from CES use, according to physicians. RESULTS: Compared with patients in Germany and France, US patients were younger (mean age 45.3 [SD 11.9] years vs 61.9 [SD 9.2] and 65.8 [SD 9.4] years, respectively), more often female, more highly educated, and more often working full-time. In all, 51 (44.7%) US patients, 16 (36.4%) German patients, and 18 (46.3%) French patients indicated strong interest in a CES program, and 115 (78.7%) reported currently using ≥1 connected device or app. However, physicians believed that only 11.3%-19.2% of their patients were using connected devices or apps to manage their disease. Physicians also reported infrequently recommending or prescribing connected devices to their patients, although ≥80% (n=28) of them thought that a CES could help support their patients in managing their disease. The factors most predictive of patient likelihood of participating in a CES program were cost, inclusion of medication reminders, and linking blood glucose levels to behaviors such as eating and exercise. In all countries, the most common patient expectations for a CES program were that it could help them eat more healthfully, increase their physical activity, increase their understanding of how blood glucose relates to behavior such as exercise and eating, and reduce stress. Physicians thought that newly diagnosed patients, sicker patients-those who had been hospitalized for diabetes, were currently using insulin, or who had any comorbid condition-and patients who were nonadherent to treatment were most likely to benefit from CES use. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was a high degree of interest in the future use of CES, although additional education is needed among both patients with T2DM and their physicians to achieve the full potential of such systems to improve self-management and clinical care for the disease.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→