Characterizing Technology Use and Preferences for Health Communication in South Asian Immigrants With Prediabetes or Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes disproportionately affects South Asian subgroups. Lifestyle prevention programs help prevent and manage diabetes; however, there is a need to tailor these programs for mobile health (mHealth). OBJECTIVE: This study examined technology access, current use, and preferences for health communication among South Asian immigrants diagnosed with or at risk for diabetes, overall and by sex. We examined factors associated with interest in receiving diabetes information by (1) text message, (2) online (videos, voice notes, online forums), and (3) none or skipped, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and technology access. METHODS: We used baseline data collected in 2019-2021 from two clinical trials among South Asian immigrants in New York City (NYC), with one trial focused on diabetes prevention and the other focused on diabetes management. Descriptive statistics were used to examine overall and sex-stratified impacts of sociodemographics on technology use. Overall logistic regression was used to examine the preference for diabetes information by text message, online (videos, voice notes, or forums), and no interest/skipped response. RESULTS: The overall sample (N=816) had a mean age of 51.8 years (SD 11.0), and was mostly female (462/816, 56.6%), married (756/816, 92.6%), with below high school education (476/816, 58.3%) and limited English proficiency (731/816, 89.6%). Most participants had a smartphone (611/816, 74.9%) and reported interest in receiving diabetes information via text message (609/816, 74.6%). Compared to male participants, female participants were significantly less likely to own smartphones (317/462, 68.6% vs 294/354, 83.1%) or use social media apps (Viber: 102/462, 22.1% vs 111/354, 31.4%; WhatsApp: 279/462, 60.4% vs 255/354, 72.0%; Facebook: Messenger 72/462, 15.6% vs 150/354, 42.4%). A preference for receiving diabetes information via text messaging was associated with male sex (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.01-2.55; P=.04), current unemployment (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.03-2.53; P=.04), above high school education (AOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.41-3.32; P<.001), and owning a smart device (AOR 3.35, 95% CI 2.17-5.18; P<.001). A preference for videos, voice notes, or online forums was associated with male sex (AOR 2.38, 95% CI 1.59-3.57; P<.001) and ownership of a smart device (AOR 5.19, 95% CI 2.83-9.51; P<.001). No interest/skipping the question was associated with female sex (AOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.55-4.56; P<.001), high school education or below (AOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.22-3.36; P=.01), not being married (AOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.13-4.52; P=.02), current employment (AOR 1.96, 95% CI 1.18-3.29; P=.01), and not owning a smart device (AOR 2.06, 95% CI 2.06-5.44; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Technology access and social media usage were moderately high in primarily low-income South Asian immigrants in NYC with prediabetes or diabetes. Sex, education, marital status, and employment were associated with interest in mHealth interventions. Additional support to South Asian women may be required when designing and developing mHealth interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333044; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333044, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03188094; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03188094. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-019-3711-y.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".