ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

mHealth apps are not being used. Over 45,000 mhealth apps are languishing in mobile app stores. We evaluated over 200 diabetes mobile apps found in the Apple and Google app stores using a framework that we recently published. None of the apps met all 15 criteria identified by our framework. The largest number of apps fell into the category of Type 1 diabetes blood sugar and medication trackers. Other types of apps included educational apps such as recipe apps, guideline dissemination apps, simple diabetes education apps, etc. There is a need for more Type 2 apps and for all types of apps that are better integrated into EMRs for more holistic care that can be prescribed by clinicians and monitored and supported by the health care team.
Diabetes mHealth Apps:
Can they be effective?
Ronak BRAHMBHATT a, Shadi NIAKAN b, Nishita SAHA d, Anukriti TEWARI c,
Ashfiya PIRANI d, Natasha KESHAVJEE a, Dora MUGAMBI a, Nasrin ALAVI a,
Karim KESHAVJEEa,b,e
1
a InfoClin Inc, Toronto, ON
b University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
c York University, Toronto, ON
d University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
e Ryerson University, Toronto, ON
Abstract. mHealth apps are not being used. Over 45,000 mhealth apps are
languishing in mobile app stores. We evaluated over 200 diabetes mobile apps
found in the Apple and Google app stores using a framework that we recently
published. None of the apps met all 15 criteria identified by our framework. The
largest number of apps fell into the category of Type 1 diabetes blood sugar and
medication trackers. Other types of apps included educational apps such as recipe
apps, guideline dissemination apps, simple diabetes education apps, etc. There is a
need for more Type 2 apps and for all types of apps that are better integrated into
EMRs for more holistic care that can be prescribed by clinicians and monitored and
supported by the health care team.
Keywords. mhealth apps, diabetes, Type 1, Type 2, effectiveness, mhealth app
architecture, mobile apps, EMR integration.
Introduction
Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease whose prevalence is increasing rapidly
world-wide. The US spends US$245 billion and Canada spends CAN$12.5
billion annually on the direct and in-direct costs of diabetes [1, 2]. There is
strong support for the efficacy of self-management for diabetes, since the
treatment for the disease has a significant component of lifestyle change and
long-term adherence to medications [3].
One way of supporting patients in self-care and self-management is through
the use of technology, including mhealth apps [4, 5]. However, uptake of
mhealth apps is particularly poor [6]. In a recently accepted paper, we developed
a reference architecture for the design and development of mhealth apps for
chronic disease management that addresses many of the barriers identified in the
literature [7]. Based on this reference architecture, we developed screening
criteria for what should be in a mhealth app for optimal management of patients
1
Corresponding Author.
Brahmbhatt R, Niakan S, Saha N, Tewari A, Pirani A, Keshavjee N, Mugambi D,
Alavi N, Keshavjee K. Diabetes mHealth Apps: Designing for Greater Uptake. Stud
Health Technol Inform. 2017;234:49-53. PubMed PMID: 28186014.
with diabetes. We were interested in learning whether diabetes mhealth apps
available in the apps stores meet the criteria that would allow them to function
well and solve previously identified barriers to mhealth app use.
1. Methods
We searched through the Apple iTunes and Google Play apps stores. Our search focused
on diabetes management and prevention apps using search terms such as diabetes,
diabetes management and diabetes tracker; 201 apps were identified. Using our mhealth
reference architecture [7], we devised 15 major functions that a diabetes management
app should perform (Table 1) because they enable care that is supported by guidelines
and by patient engagement best practices. Each major function also has about 5 to 10
descriptors; e.g., when “Patient Information” is a major app function, information such
as “date of birth” or “sex” is a descriptor. Every app was screened against these 15 major
functions.
Due to a limited budget, we did not download apps. Two individuals evaluated each
app based on a review of the product description, a careful review of the screen shots
provided and based on the reviews by current users. If an app had at least one attribute
of a major function, it was considered to have that function.
We had 9 reviewers, several of whom are clinicians (RB, KK, NA), students (AT,
AP, SN, NS) or research associates (DM, NK). Prior to screening initialization, we
carried out a calibration exercise with 5 apps. Reviewers had 84% agreement rate, which
was close to our target of 85%. Following the calibration exercise, we identified areas of
major discrepancy and standardized our approach. All reviewers were trained in the
standardized approach. Any new information was noted and a training program was
created which was used to train for the final screening. We also tailored our screening
sheet after the discrepancy resolution session. For final screening, each app was allocated
to two independent reviewers.
All data was collected in a Google Sheets. A list of apps and related major and minor
functions was collected in Airtable and shared with the reviewers to maintain blinding
for screening in Google Sheets. After screening was complete, all data was collated into
a single spreadsheet and descriptive analysis was performed using Google Sheets.
2. Results
Of the 201 apps reviewed, none met all the functional criteria identified as being
necessary for the management of patients with diabetes (Table 1). A majority of apps
had some form of educational or recommendation component. Many were recipe apps
or provided basic information about diabetes. Most apps (approximately 90) were
replacements for paper journals or diaries, allowing patients with Type 1 diabetes to keep
track of their blood sugar readings and their insulin intake. A number of those apps also
provided basic education or made some minor recommendations, such as on exercise or
diet, which contributed to making education and recommendations the most prevalent
feature. A reasonable number of functions are available in about 25% of apps, including
patient information, notifications, lab results, physiological measurements and
messaging with their provider.
Surprisingly, very few apps (3) helped patients keep track of their risks factors, such
as smoking and alcohol consumption, or their vaccinations (0), which are recommended
for patients with diabetes to keep up with. Only 6 used risk scores to help patients connect
their daily care to future events so they could see the impact of their current actions on
potential events in the future.
Function
Number of Apps
% of Apps
Patient Information
49
24%
Risk Scores
6
3%
Comorbidities
2
1%
Medications
90
45%
Self-management
93
46%
Education/Recommendations
110
55%
Health System Utilization
4
2%
Notifications
51
25%
EMR Integrations
5
2%
Local Device Integration
28
14%
Lab Results
40
20%
Physiological Measurements
50
25%
Messaging with Provider
48
24%
Risk Factors
3
1%
Vaccinations
0
0%
Table 1. Features present in diabetes apps
Total Score
Number of Apps
0
13
1
58
2
33
3
28
4
21
5
21
6
13
7
8
8
6
Table 2. Total scores and the number of apps that achieve them
Only a small number of apps were integrated with a local device such as a
glucometer or blood pressure cuff (28). These integrations are increasingly built into
smartphones by manufacturers and tapping into them is not particularly difficult [8].
Table 2 displays total scores and the number of apps that attained that score. An app
could obtain a maximum score of 15; none achieved it. A number of apps received a
score of 0. These were apps that were related to the concept of diabetes, but were not
meant for patients; e.g., diabetes conference apps, guideline apps for health professionals
and apps for educating nursing students about diabetes.
Only a small number of apps attained a score of 8. Of those, all had the following
features built in: patient demographics, medications, notifications, lab results and
physiological measurements. Other features which were more variable included,
messaging with physician, educational features, data export feature and integration with
a local device
It is not surprising that apps were not able to get past a score of 8. To achieve a
higher score requires interoperability with EMRs and the health system to obtain
information about risk factors, vaccinations and other important clinical endpoints. It
would be interesting to see interoperability kits built that would allow mobile health apps
to integrate with EMRs.
3. Discussion
Overall, apps in the diabetes space appear to serve mostly educational or informational
purposes and blood glucose and insulin tracking for patients with Type 1 diabetes. The
blood glucose trackers seem to be well-received and many are well-liked in the app store.
Although these tools are valuable and play an important role in bridging the paper-
electronic gap, there is a great need for high quality tools that can be prescribed by
physicians and whose use can be monitored by a health care team. The tools need to
capture additional data that can be used to manage the whole patient and their disease,
not just a small part of the patients care which they are expected to manage themselves.
If we are to engage patients in self-management, we need to provide them with more
sophisticated tools within the context of the patient-physician relationship that ensures
that patients have the guidance they need to succeed in their own care on all disease
dimensions, not just one or two. The apps need to also provide health care teams the
tools they need to follow-up on patients, ensure lab tests are done, treatment is working
and that patients are adhering to diet, lifestyle and medication recommendations.
Given the high level of heterogeneity in the apps we found, we believe there is a
need for standard mhealth app certification criteria developed and regulated by a credible
organization. Any app that enters the market for use as a prescribed disease management
app should have at minimum the baseline functions outlined in our major functions list.
Certification can provide a basic level of trust to both physicians and patients, similar to
the way people trust drugs regulated by Health Canada. We also believe that a
standardized interoperability kit for mhealth apps developed by EMR vendors would
go a long way to make important data for the care of diabetes available to patients and
make it easier for clinicians to analyze and trend.
Limitations of this study include: 1) due to budgetary constraints, we did not
download apps from the stores; 2) some vendors had poorer descriptions of their product
than others; 3) a very small number of apps were in languages that are not understood by
the people conducting the review; 4) we were not able to quantitate which apps are used
and which ones are not; 5) we did not include any patients in defining the criteria nor in
reviewing the apps.
In the next iteration of our project, we aim to include patients, download the apps
that got the highest scores, review them in greater depth, attempt to translate apps in
other languages and attempt to quantitate actual use of apps.
References
[1] The Cost of Diabetes. (2016). American Diabetes Association. Retrieved 11 September 2016, from
http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html?
[2] An economic tsunami: the cost of diabetes in Canada Diabetes.ca. Retrieved 11 September 2016, from
http://www.diabetes.ca/CDA/media/documents/publications-and-newsletters/advocacy-
reports/economic-tsunami-cost-of-diabetes-in-canada-english.pdf
[3] Lavelle, D., Zeitoun, J., Stern, M., Butkiewicz, E., Wegner, E., & Reinisch, C. (2016). Diabetes Self-
Management Education in the Home. Cureus, 8(7).
[4] Brzan, P. P., Rotman, E., Pajnkihar, M., & Klanjsek, P. (2016). Mobile Applications for Control and Self
Management of Diabetes: A Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Systems, 40(9), 210.
[5] Goyal, S., Morita, P., Lewis, G. F., Yu, C., Seto, E., & Cafazzo, J. A. (2016). The Systematic Design of a
Behavioural Mobile Health Application for the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes. Canadian journal
of diabetes, 40(1), 95-104.
[6] Research2guidance. (2015). App Developer Economics 2015. Retrieved December 16, 2015, from
http://research2guidance.com/r2g/r2g--App-Developer-Economics-2015.pdf
[7] Chindalo P, Keshavjee K, Karim A, Brahmbhatt R, Saha N. (In press). Health Apps by Design: A
Reference Architecture for Mobile Engagement. International Journal of Handheld Computing Research.
[8] Diabeto iOS app is now available to download! https://blog.diabe.to/diabeto-ios-app-is-now-available-to-
download-72d93cc73d66#.fjg3hqeqx 2016. Web. 18 Sept. 2016
... 13,[25][26][27] For example, features such as personal details, information about medications, symptoms, risk factors, laboratory results are included as relevant to patient health tracking. 28,29 Similarly, features such as social/community engagement, goal setting, and gamification were included as relevant to patient motivation and support. 27,28 The framework also includes data that might normally be found in an electronic medical record (EMR) to assist the patient in caring for themselves. ...
... 28,29 Similarly, features such as social/community engagement, goal setting, and gamification were included as relevant to patient motivation and support. 27,28 The framework also includes data that might normally be found in an electronic medical record (EMR) to assist the patient in caring for themselves. 28,30 The desirable features were separated into five categories for ease of reference (Table 1): (1) features that engender credibility and trust ("Credibility," 7 features), (2) features that educate and inform ("Information," 10 features), (3) features that provide interactive tools and behavior tracking ("Engagement," 11 features), (4) features that speak to usability and design methodology ("Usability," 5 features), and (5) features that speak to integration of the app with EMRs and other health system technologies ("Integration," 3 features), for a total of 36 features. ...
... 27,28 The framework also includes data that might normally be found in an electronic medical record (EMR) to assist the patient in caring for themselves. 28,30 The desirable features were separated into five categories for ease of reference (Table 1): (1) features that engender credibility and trust ("Credibility," 7 features), (2) features that educate and inform ("Information," 10 features), (3) features that provide interactive tools and behavior tracking ("Engagement," 11 features), (4) features that speak to usability and design methodology ("Usability," 5 features), and (5) features that speak to integration of the app with EMRs and other health system technologies ("Integration," 3 features), for a total of 36 features. Five of these features are numeric in nature (i.e. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study evaluates mobile apps using a theory-based evaluation framework to discover their applicability for patients at risk of gestational diabetes. This study assessed how well the existing mobile apps on the market meet the information and tracking needs of patients with gestational diabetes and evaluated the feasibility of how to integrate these apps into patient care. A search was conducted in the Apple iTunes and Google Play store for mobile apps that contained keywords related to the following concepts of nutrition: diet, tracking, diabetes, and pregnancy. Evaluation criteria were developed to assess the mobile apps on five dimensions. Overall, the apps scored well on education and information functions and scored poorly on engagement functions. There are few apps that provide comprehensive evidence-based educational content, tracking tools, and integration with electronic health records. This study demonstrates the need to develop apps that have comprehensive content, tracking tools, and ability to bidirectionally share data.
... For example, in one analysis, not specific to emerging adults, the authors reviewed 201 diabetes self-management apps and found that of 15 desired functions, none covered all the necessary features. 12 While about half of the reviewed apps had functions surrounding medication, selfmanagement, and diabetes education, only 25% had the ability to share data with one's provider or provide notifications, and only 14% had the option to work with a local device. The authors concluded that the diabetes apps were largely informational and served basic tracking functions rather than providing the comprehensive tools and features needed for self-management. ...
Article
Access to high-quality mhealth tools for diabetes management is critical. The purpose was to systematically review mobile apps for features relevant to helping emerging adults manage their diabetes as they transition to independent diabetes monitoring. Mobile apps were reviewed for relevance to emerging adults, aged 18–25, living with diabetes. The GooglePlay store was systematically searched to identify diabetes management mobile tools. Of the 29 apps, only one app had any features relevant to emerging adults. In total, 20 apps had a feature to share a copy of diet or blood sugar logs with a family member or provider. Only 9 apps had any interactivity other than tracking. While most apps had graphics, only 5 were deemed high quality. Just one app met all three included Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) criteria. This review serves as a starting point to guide educators and patients, especially to aid continuity of care when in-person support is not feasible. Ongoing review of new apps with improved functionality and effectiveness studies of the apps’ impact on emerging adults’ diabetes management is imperative.
... 22 In addition, other mHealth apps are available for cardiovascular disease and diabetes, but these also have limitations. 23,24 The aforementioned mHealth apps address some aspects of cancer survivorship care, but our goal was to create a tool that holds patients accountable for their health behaviors by intervening in real time to improve health outcomes. Therefore, we developed an mHealth tool (Methodist Hospital Cancer Health Application [MOCHA]) to improve accountability and weight control in breast cancer survivors. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: Only 34% of breast cancer survivors engage in the recommended level of physical activity because of a lack of accountability and motivation. Methodist Hospital Cancer Health Application (MOCHA) is a smartphone tool created specifically for self-reinforcement for patients with cancer through the daily accounting of activity and nutrition and direct interaction with clinical dietitians. We hypothesize that use of MOCHA will improve the accountability of breast cancer survivors and help them reach their personalized goals. Patients and methods: Women with stages I to III breast cancer who were at least 6 months post-active treatment with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 25 kg/m2 were enrolled in a 4-week feasibility trial. The primary objective was to demonstrate adherence during weeks 2 and 3 of the 4-week study period (14 days total). The secondary objective was to determine the usability of MOCHA according to the system usability scale. The exploratory objective was to determine weight loss and dietitian-participant interaction. Results: We enrolled 33 breast cancer survivors who had an average BMI of 31.6 kg/m2. Twenty-five survivors completed the study, and the average number of daily uses was approximately 3.5 (range, 0 to 12) times/day; participants lost an average of 2 lbs (+4 lbs to -10.6 lbs). The average score of usability (the second objective) was 77.4, which was greater than the acceptable level. More than 90% of patients found MOCHA easy to navigate, and 84% were motivated to use MOCHA daily. Conclusion: This study emphasizes the importance of technology use to improve goal adherence for patients by providing real-time feedback and accountability with the health care team. MOCHA focuses on the engagement of the health care team and is integrated into clinical workflow. Future directions will use MOCHA in a long-term behavior modification study.
... Whether older adults with heart failure or adolescents with diabetes will use a health application, identifying the end-user and their needs at the start of the design process is pivotal for the next steps towards development [19,20]. Nevertheless, although the importance behind end-user evaluation has been signiied, various studies conirm the lack of health apps available suiting their needs and capabilities [1,[21][22][23]. In the Delphi study, a literature review was conducted overviewing the determinants of innovation in health care organizations [24]. ...
... One of the primary reasons to support mHealth is the potential for technology to reach many more people than traditional interventions, but despite the positive results of many mHealth research studies, the translation of research findings to clinical practice and policy for mHealth in particular remains poor (27)(28)(29). Furthermore, there appears to be an attitude in the field that ever greater technological complexity is representative of innovation, while in fact, this seduction by technology is concomitant with tens of thousands of mHealth applications (apps) and solutions languishing with few users and, therefore, no impact (30). There remains little understanding of the barriers and facilitators to program adoption and more widespread dissemination in either a local or global context. ...
Article
Background: Despite efforts to promote vaccination in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), over 20 million infants remain under-immunized and at risk for unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Mobile health technologies, such as Short Message Service (SMS) texts, have tremendous and untapped potential for disease management. Patient reminder systems are an important mechanism for improving childhood vaccination coverage and can be easily adapted to SMS platforms. However, current research lacks an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to mHealth program design, implementation, and scale in LMICs. Methods: We analyzed survey data collected March-November 2016 at the enrollment visit from a randomized controlled trial conducted at public health clinics in urban and rural Guatemala. Participants included eligible infants 6 weeks to 6 months of age receiving the first dose of the primary immunization series. At least one parent needed to own a mobile phone and be capable of deciphering SMS. Chi-square or Fisher's exact and Student's t-test were used to assess significance levels in demographic differences to describe factors that contribute to the feasibility of using an SMS-based vaccination reminder system. Results: Of 1,088 families approached for enrollment, 871 were eligible and 720 (82.7%) participated with equal numbers of urban and rural children enrolled; 54 parents did not own a mobile phone with SMS capability and three parents could not use SMS. There was no significant difference between urban and rural maternal mobile phone ownership (94.4% vs. 93.3%, P=0.53), but more urban fathers owned mobile phones (72.8% vs. 47.1%, P<0.0001) and, overall, more mothers compared to fathers owned mobile phones (93.9% vs. 61.1%, P<0.0001). Most families (90.4%) chose to have reminders sent to the mother. Urban participants reported more mobile phones present in the home (P<0.0001), but rural participants reported more telephone landlines (34.7% vs. 15.6%, P<0.0001). Most participants reported a daily average of ≤5 telephone calls made (87.4%), ≤10 texts sent (91.0%), and ≤10 texts received (89.9%), with urban families reporting greater telephone usage (P=0.006, P<0.001, and P<0.001 respectively). Parents preferred to make calls over sending texts (74.7% vs. 25.3%, P<0.0001), with more urban families preferring text messaging (31.9% vs. 18.6%, P<0.0001). Conclusions: Our study results provide important insight into mobile phone access, usage, and preferences for voice and text communication across rural and urban populations of an LMIC that can be used to inform future mHealth interventions. Our findings suggest that offering a combination of more traditional communication methods with newer, modern technologies may be more effective at reminding families about vaccination visits, particularly for our rural population, and that targeting mothers for mobile phone interventions may provide the greatest benefits. Overall, our study suggests that using SMS reminders in LMICs can be a feasible tool for public health interventions.
Article
Full-text available
Applications and systems for diabetes self-management are growing and involve a vast majority of factors to consider. This study was aimed at examining the integration of portable technologies for diabetes self-management, as well as benefits and issues arising of its use. From a web-based study on several groups of people with diabetes, most of them accustomed to the daily use of devices and applications for self-control, a deeper analysis based on correlations and inference was conducted considering information about the disease, technology knowledge and devices handling, use of technologies for diabetes control and management, and training with devices from a clinical and educational viewpoint. In this study, more than 70% of participants use Continuous Glucose Systems and additional devices (41.85% also use insulin pumps) which impacts positively on the knowledge of incoming technologies. The “easy to use” factor of current apps for diabetes self-management is the most valuable feature. Also, 88.98% of participants did not use gamification-based methods during the initial training sessions, although gamification is a useful technique in learning stages. An inference analysis shows how specific characteristics of diabetes devices and apps should improve. On the basis of the results, we discuss about benefits, shortcomings, and the state of these technologies and patient needs for the future.
Article
Objective: To examine the effects of a smartphone application (app) to monitor longitudinal electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) on patient satisfaction and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: We conducted a 6-month randomized controlled trial of an app with care coordination (intervention) vs. care coordination alone (control) in 191 RA patients. Participants in the intervention group were prompted to answer daily ePROs. In both the intervention and control groups, a care coordinator called participants at 6 and 18 weeks to assess for flares. The main outcomes were the global satisfaction score from the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) score, and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Results: Groups were similar at baseline. Median 6-month TSQM score was 83.3 in both groups, and median 6-month PEPPI score was 50 in both groups. Median 6-month CDAI scores were 8 in the intervention group vs. 10 in the control group. No statistically significant group differences in 6-month medians of TSQM, PEPPI, or CDAI were detected. Of the 67 intervention participants who completed the exit survey, 90% rated their likelihood of recommending the app as ≥7 out of 10. Of the 11 physicians, 73% agreed/strongly agreed that they wanted to continue offering the app to patients. Conclusions: A mobile app designed to collect ePRO data on RA symptoms did not significantly improve patient satisfaction or disease activity compared to care coordination alone. However, both patients and physicians reported positive experiences with the app.
Article
Full-text available
The mobile health (mhealth) app market continues to grow rapidly. However, with the exception of fitness apps and a few isolated cases, most mhealth apps have not gained traction. The barriers preventing patients and care providers from using these apps include: for patients, information that contradicts health care provider advice, manual data entry procedures and poor fit with their treatment plan; for providers, distrust in unknown apps, lack of congruence with workflow, inability to integrate app data into their medical record system and challenges to analyze and visualize information effectively. In this article, the authors build upon previous work to define design requirements for quality mhealth apps and a framework for patient engagement to propose a new reference architecture for the next generation of healthcare mobile apps that increase the likelihood of being useful for and used by patients and health care providers alike.
Article
Full-text available
Mobile applications (apps) can be very useful software on smartphones for all aspects of people’s lives. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, can be made manageable with the support of mobile apps. Applications on smartphones can also help people with diabetes to control their fitness and health. A systematic review of free apps in the English language for smartphones in three of the most popular mobile app stores: Google Play (Android), App Store (iOS) and Windows Phone Store, was performed from November to December 2015. The review of freely available mobile apps for self-management of diabetes was conducted based on the criteria for promoting diabetes self-management as defined by Goyal and Cafazzo (monitoring blood glucose level and medication, nutrition, physical exercise and body weight). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed. Three independent experts in the field of healthcare-related mobile apps were included in the assessment for eligibility and testing phase. We tested and evaluated 65 apps (21 from Google Play Store, 31 from App Store and 13 from Windows Phone Store). Fifty-six of these apps did not meet even minimal requirements or did not work properly. While a wide selection of mobile applications is available for self-management of diabetes, current results show that there are only nine (5 from Google Play Store, 3 from App Store and 1 from Windows Phone Store) out of 65 reviewed mobile apps that can be versatile and useful for successful self-management of diabetes based on selection criteria. The levels of inclusion of features based on selection criteria in selected mobile apps can be very different. The results of the study can be used as a basis to prvide app developers with certain recommendations. There is a need for mobile apps for self-management of diabetes with more features in order to increase the number of long-term users and thus influence better self-management of the disease.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Diabetes self-management education and home visits have been found to improve clinical outcomes in individuals living with diabetes. The purpose of this pilot project was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of conducting self-management education in patients' homes. Methods Baseline biometric data was collected from a cohort of adult patients with diabetes. Home visits to 19 patients were conducted by doctoral students from Rutgers University School of Nursing. The visits included knowledge assessment, review of foods in the home, diabetes self-management education, and teaching the proper use of monitoring tools such as the glucometer and blood pressure monitor. Biomarkers were obtained post-intervention and were compared to baseline biomarkers. Descriptive lifestyle data was collected and opportunities for customized patient education were provided. Results The biomarkers improved overall during the four months after the education intervention. The mean A1C reduced 12% (p=0.0107), the mean glucose reduced 12% (p=0.0994), the mean BMI reduced 2% (p=0.1490), the systolic pressure reduced 1% (p=0.4196), and the diastolic pressure remained stable. Specific goal setting further increased the improvement in the area the individual planned to address. Conclusions This project supports prior studies that found that in-home educational programs can improve the self-management of diabetes and lead to improvement in health indicators. The benefits of the study included personal attention in ensuring the correct use of home health monitoring devices, building self-management confidence, and identifying treatment barriers that may not be easily discerned in a clinic setting.
Article
Patients with diabetes often face serious complications due to limited self-management skills, the inability to adhere to care regimens, and psychosocial factors. Although regular self-monitoring of blood glucose is known to benefit patients receiving insulin therapy, its role in patients not treated with insulin has been unclear. However, recent studies have demonstrated that structured self-monitoring of blood glucose can significantly benefit patients who are not taking insulin, facilitating improved self-awareness and clinical decision making. We hypothesize that effective self-management by patients with type 2 diabetes who do not need insulin requires a behavioural intervention that enables the association between lifestyle behaviours, such as dietary intake and physical activity, and overall glycemic control. Mobile health applications (apps), coupled with wireless medical peripheral devices, can facilitate self-monitoring; deliver tailored, actionable knowledge; elicit positive behaviour changes and promote effective self-management of diabetes. Although existing apps incorporate tracking and feedback from healthcare providers, few attempt to elicit positive behaviour changes for the purposes of developing patients' self-care skills. The purpose of this article is to present a systematic approach to the design and development a diabetes self-management mobile app, which included 1) a scoping review of literature; 2) the development of an overarching theoretical approach and 3) validation of the app features through user-centred design methods. The resulting app, bant II, facilitates 1) self-monitoring of blood glucose, physical activity, diet and weight; 2) identification of glycemic patterns in relation to lifestyle; 3) remedial decision making and 4) positive behaviour change through incentives.
American Diabetes Association
The Cost of Diabetes. (2016). American Diabetes Association. Retrieved 11 September 2016, from http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html?
from http://www.diabetes.ca/CDA/media/documents/publications-and-newsletters/advocacyreports/economic-tsunami-cost-of-diabetes-in-canada-english
  • An
An economic tsunami: the cost of diabetes in Canada Diabetes.ca. Retrieved 11 September 2016, from http://www.diabetes.ca/CDA/media/documents/publications-and-newsletters/advocacyreports/economic-tsunami-cost-of-diabetes-in-canada-english.pdf