MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408848797 · doi:10.2196/60855

The Effect of a Mobile App (eMOM) on Self-Discovery and Psychological Factors in Persons With Gestational Diabetes: Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4408848797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sini Määttänen, Saila B. Koivusalo, Hanna Ylinen, Seppo Heinonen, Mikko Kytö

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintGestational diabetesSelf-managementPsychologyMobile appsmHealthMedicineClinical psychologyGerontologyPsychological interventionComputer sciencePregnancyPsychiatryWorld Wide WebGestationBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that develops during pregnancy and increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life. The rising prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) highlights the need for more comprehensive treatment strategies, with a particular emphasis on supporting maternal self-management. We showed recently that a mobile app, eMOM, where glucose, nutrition, and physical activity are combined within a single app, significantly improves multiple clinical outcomes among persons with gestational diabetes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the effects of the eMOM on maternal self-discovery and learning, autonomous motivation to manage GDM, and psychological well-being. Additionally, we examine the correlation between improved maternal clinical outcomes and change in autonomous motivation. We also assess the acceptance and usability of the eMOM app. METHODS: Building upon the original randomized controlled trial (RCT), in which the intervention arm used a mobile app (eMOM), we conducted a mixed methods study that included an investigation of eMOM log files, semistructured interviews on self-discovery, and an examination of questionnaires assessing motivation (Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire and Perceived Competence Scale), depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale), technology use and acceptance (Unified Theory of Acceptance of Use of Technology questionnaire), and usability (modified Software Usability Measurement Inventory). Additionally, we monitored participants' stress levels using wearable electrocardiographic devices (FirstBeat Bodyguard 2). A total of 148 individuals participated in the original RCTs, with 76 in the intervention arm and 72 in the control arm. From the intervention arm, 18 participants were randomly selected for interviews in this study. RESULTS: Results show that the use rate of eMOM was high, and novel visualization supported self-discovery in persons with GDM. Most participants (17/18, 94%) indicated that the eMOM app helped to find the associations between their daily activities and glucose levels. Especially having nutrition visualized together with glucose was highly appreciated. Participants also reported learning about the associations between physical activity and glucose levels. No differences were observed between the intervention and control arms in autonomous motivation, depression, or stress. Furthermore, there were no correlations between improved clinical outcomes and changes in motivation. Accessibility and usability ratings were consistently high throughout the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The eMOM mobile app combining data from continuous glucose monitor, food diary, and physical activity tracker supports maternal self-discovery related to GDM without contributing to depression or adding extra stress. This encourages the use of such mobile apps in maternity care. Notably, motivational factors did not correlate with the positive outcomes observed in our prior RCT, suggesting that self-discovery has a greater impact on clinical results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04714762; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04714762.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.417 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→