MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410846993 · doi:10.2196/59733

Impact of 12-Month mHealth Home Telemonitoring on Clinical Outcomes in Older Individuals With Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4410846993 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matic Mihevc, Majda Mori Lukančič, Črt Zavrnik, Tina Virtič Potočnik, Nina Ružić Gorenjec, Marija Petek Šter, Zalika Klemenc–Ketiš, Antonija Poplas Susič

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RSEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureType 2 diabetesmHealthRandomized controlled trialBody mass indexPopulationDiabetes mellitusEveningPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychological interventionNursingEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: As the population ages, the prevalence of chronic diseases such as arterial hypertension (AH) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing, posing challenges for effective management in primary care settings. Although mobile health (mHealth) home telemonitoring offers promising support, evidence regarding its clinical impact on older patients is limited. Objective: The objective of this paper was to evaluate the impact of 12-month telemonitoring on clinical outcomes in older individuals with AH and T2D compared to standard care in a primary care setting. Methods: In a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial, individuals aged 65 years and older with AH and T2D were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a telemonitoring group or a standard care group. The telemonitoring group received mHealth support in addition to standard care. Over 12 months, participants measured blood pressure (BP) twice weekly with 2 consecutive readings each morning and evening, using the second reading as valid. Blood glucose (BG) was measured monthly, both fasting and 90 minutes after meals. Abnormal results triggered a 7-day BP or 1-day BG profile or a teleconsultation with a general practitioner. Meanwhile, the control group received routine care based on integrated care protocols at community health centers. Primary outcomes were the differences between groups in the change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and HbA1c levels at 12 months after inclusion from baseline. Secondary outcomes included changes in diastolic blood pressure, fasting BG, lipid profile, body mass index, appraisal of diabetes, and behavioral risk factors. Results: Initially, 128 patients were enrolled, with 117 (91.4%) completing the 12-month follow-up. The mean age was 71.3 (SD 4.7) years, with a mean SBP of 136.7 (SD 14.1) mmHg and mean HbA1c of 7.2% (SD 1.0%). There were no significant sociodemographic or clinical differences between groups at baseline. At 12 months, the telemonitoring group experienced significant reductions in SBP (-9.7 mmHg, 95% CI -12.6 to -6.8; P<.001) and HbA1c (-0.5%, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.3; P<.001), whereas the control group exhibited nonsignificant changes in SBP (-2.8 mmHg, 95% CI -5.9 to 0.2; P=.07) and HbA1c (0%, 95% CI -0.3 to 1.9; P=.75). The difference between groups at 12 months was significant for both SBP (-6.9 mmHg, 95% CI -11 to -2.7; P=.001) and HbA1c (-0.5%, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.2; P=.002), with no significant differences observed in secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Telemonitoring effectively improves AH and T2D control in older people but has no impact on other cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes-related quality of life. Future research should explore combining educational and behavioral interventions with telemonitoring to enhance overall health outcomes. However, complex interventions may pose challenges for the elderly, suggesting the need for careful patient selection to ensure that benefits outweigh potential burdens.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→