MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415704593 · doi:10.2196/75623

Developing eHealth Interventions to Improve Diabetes Management in Emerging Adulthood: Qualitative Formative Study

2025· article· en· W4415704593 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
April Idalski Carcone, Deepika Baskar, Karen MacDonell, Susan Eggly, Samiran Ghosh, Colleen Buggs‐Saxton, Steven J. Ondersma, Deborah A. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthFormative assessmentPsychological interventionQualitative researchmHealthIntervention (counseling)Control (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Emerging adulthood is a high-risk period during which many with type 1 diabetes demonstrate suboptimal diabetes management and glycemic control. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions designed specifically for this population. Technology-based approaches are readily accessible to this age group. Furthermore, interventions consistent with self-determination theory-which posits that the fulfillment of psychological needs for autonomy, self-efficacy, and relatedness promotes intrinsic motivation for change-may resonate well with emerging adults' developmental needs for establishing independence and autonomy, and growing their social network. Objective: This study aimed to enhance the potential relevance, sustainability, and efficacy of 3 self-determination theory-informed mobile health intervention components and content for emerging adults with type 1 diabetes. Key areas of interest included emerging adults' perspectives on the use of cultural tailoring, developmental relevance of content, and delivery preferences. Methods: In this qualitative formative study, 20 emerging adults reviewed and provided feedback on 3 newly developed intervention components via individual interviews. Ten reviewed the motivation enhancement system, a 2-session counseling intervention grounded in motivational interviewing and designed to enhance emerging adults' autonomy and self-efficacy for diabetes self-management. Ten reviewed the SMS text messaging reminder intervention (one-way text message reminders to complete diabetes care) and the question prompt list (a list of questions related to diabetes care designed to increase patients' active participation during medical visits). Interviews were analyzed using framework matrix analysis, an efficient approach to inductive thematic analysis. Results: Emerging adults found all 3 interventions acceptable and helpful. They noted the interventions' integration into the technology they already use as a strength. Across interventions, emerging adults also expressed a preference for culturally tailored intervention content, including intervention examples, actors, and language representing their illness experience, identity, and personal preferences. Intervention-specific feedback suggested emerging adults liked motivation enhancement system intervention elements that were engaging (videos) and relatable (peer testimonials), and supported their growing autonomy and independence. For SMS text messaging reminders, emerging adults appreciated the straightforward nature of the reminders and recommended more directive messages. They appreciated the range of topics and variety of messages. Suggestions included making the messages more impactful (eg, direct, personalized, and engaging, such as using emojis). Emerging adults saw the question prompt list content areas as relevant and well-aligned with their concerns highlighting the topic of transitioning to adult life with diabetes as particularly salient. Conclusions: Emerging adult feedback supports the acceptability and use of these intervention components and will be used to refine the interventions. Feedback was especially positive regarding cultural and other tailoring efforts, as well as content directed at their pending transition to full independence. At the same time, their input suggests the need for multiple specific modifications, highlighting the importance of intensive and detailed feedback from end users.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.433 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDiabetes Management and Education→French-language works237,207→