MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399467970 · doi:10.2196/51491

Development of a Novel Mobile Health App to Empower Young People With Type 1 Diabetes to Exercise Safely: Co-Design Approach

2024· article· en· W4399467970 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vinutha B. Shetty, Leanne Fried, Heather C Roby, Wayne H K Soon, Rebecca Nguyen, A. Ong, Mohinder Jaimangal, Jacinta Francis, Nirubasini Paramalingam, Donna Cross, Elizabeth A. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Diabetes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType 2 diabetesMobile appsDiabetes mellitusGerontologyPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceInternet privacyWorld Wide WebEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Blood glucose management around exercise is challenging for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Previous research has indicated interventions including decision-support aids to better support youth to effectively contextualize blood glucose results and take appropriate action to optimize glucose levels during and after exercise. Mobile health (mHealth) apps help deliver health behavior interventions to youth with T1D, given the use of technology for glucose monitoring, insulin dosing, and carbohydrate counting. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a novel prototype mHealth app to support exercise management among youth with T1D, detail the application of a co-design process and design thinking principles to inform app design and development, and identify app content and functionality that youth with T1D need to meet their physical activity goals. METHODS: A co-design approach with a user-centered design thinking framework was used to develop a prototype mHealth app "acT1ve" during the 18-month design process (March 2018 to September 2019). To better understand and respond to the challenges among youth with diabetes when physically active, 10 focus groups were conducted with youth aged 13-25 years with T1D and parents of youth with T1D. Thereafter, we conducted participatory design workshops with youth to identify key app features that would support individual needs when physically active. These features were incorporated into a wireframe, which was critically reviewed by participants. A beta version of "acT1ve" was built in iOS and android operating systems, which underwent critical review by end users, clinicians, researchers, experts in exercise and T1D, and app designers. RESULTS: Sixty youth with T1D, 14 parents, 6 researchers, and 10 clinicians were engaged in the development of "acT1ve." acT1ve included key features identified by youth, which would support their individual needs when physically active. It provided advice on carbohydrates and insulin during exercise, information on hypoglycemia treatment, pre- and postexercise advice, and an educational food guide regarding exercise management. "acT1ve" contained an exercise advisor algorithm comprising 240 pathways developed by experts in diabetes and exercise research. Based on participant input during exercise, acT1ve provided personalized insulin and carbohydrate advice for exercise lasting up to 60 minutes. It also contains other features including an activity log, which displays a complete record of the end users' activities and associated exercise advice provided by the app's algorithm for later reference, and regular reminder notifications for end users to check or monitor their glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: The co-design approach and the practical application of the user-centered design thinking framework were successfully applied in developing "acT1ve." The design thinking processes allowed youth with T1D to identify app features that would support them to be physically active, and particularly enabled the delivery of individualized advice. Furthermore, app development has been described in detail to help guide others embarking on a similar project. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001414101; https://tinyurl.com/mu9jvn2d.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DiabetesSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207