Evaluating Digital Health Solutions in Diabetes and the Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes: Targeted Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Digital health solutions (DHS) are technologies with the potential to improve patient outcomes as well as change the way care is delivered. The value of DHS for people with diabetes is not well understood, nor is it clear how to quantify this value. Objective: We aimed to summarize current literature on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in diabetes as well as in selected guidelines for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of DHS to highlight gaps, needs, and opportunities for the use of PROMs to evaluate DHS. Methods: We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to establish which PROMs were most used in diabetes clinical trials and research between 1995 and May 2024. HTA guidelines on DHS evaluation from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom were also assessed to identify PROMs for DHS evaluation in general. Results: A total of 46 diabetes-specific PROMs and 16 nondiabetes-specific PROMs were identified. The most used diabetes-specific PROMs were (1) Diabetes Distress Scale, (2) Problem Areas in Diabetes, (3) Diabetes Empowerment Scale, (4) Diabetes Quality of Life, and (5) Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. The most used nondiabetes-specific PROMs were Beck Depression Inventory, Sickness Impact Profile, EuroQol 5-Dimension, and Short Form 36-Item Health Survey. In HTA guidelines, the most prominent domain was health-related quality of life, for whose assessment there are well-established measures (Short Form 36-Item Health Survey and EuroQol 5-Dimension). Conclusions: Of the many PROMs used in diabetes care, few are currently used to evaluate DHS, and certain domains of value in diabetes are not mentioned in HTA guidelines. A common, comprehensive DHS-specific HTA framework could facilitate and accelerate the evaluation of DHS.
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 | 0.018 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".