Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29929949›Full record

ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Considerations for the Development of Mobile Phone Apps to Support Diabetes Self-Management: Systematic Review.

Mary D Adu, Usman H Malabu, Emily J Callander, Aduli Eo Malau-Aduli, Bunmi S Malau-Aduli

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mary D AduCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0046-9215
Usman H MalabuCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4899-7228
Emily J CallanderAustralian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7233-6804
Aduli Eo Malau-AduliCollege of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3660-7862
Bunmi S Malau-AduliCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6054-8498
James Cook University · AUAustralian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increased research interest in the use of mobile phone apps to support diabetes management. However, there are divergent views on what constitute the minimum standards for inclusion in the development of mobile phone apps. Mobile phone apps require an evidence-based approach to development which will consequently impact on their effectiveness. Therefore, comprehensive information on developmental considerations could help designers and researchers to develop innovative and effective patient-centered self-management mobile phone apps for diabetes patients.

objectiveThis systematic review examined the developmental considerations adopted in trials that engaged mobile phone applications for diabetes self-management.

methodsA comprehensive search strategy was implemented across 5 electronic databases; Medline, Scopus, Social Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINALHL) and supplemented by reference list from identified studies. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Critical appraisal checklist for trials. Information on developmental factors (health behavioral theory, functionality, pilot testing, user and clinical expert involvements, data privacy and app security) were assessed across experimental studies using a template developed for the review.

resultsA total of 11 studies (10 randomized controlled trials and 1 quasi-experimental trial) that fitted the inclusion criteria were identified. All the included studies had the functionality of self-monitoring of blood glucose. However, only some of them included functions for data analytics (7/11, 63.6%), education (6/11, 54.5%) and reminder (6/11, 54.5%). There were 5/11(45.5%) studies with significantly improved glycosylated hemoglobin in the intervention groups where educational functionality was present in the apps used in the 5 trials. Only 1 (1/11, 9.1%) study considered health behavioral theory and user involvement, while 2 (2/11, 18.1%) other studies reported the involvement of clinical experts in the development of their apps. There were 4 (4/11, 36.4%) studies which referred to data security and privacy considerations during their app development while 7 (7/12, 63.6%) studies provided information on pilot testing of apps before use in the full trial. Overall, none of the studies provided information on all developmental factors assessed in the review.

conclusionsThere is a lack of elaborate and detailed information in the literature regarding the factors considered in the development of apps used as interventions for diabetes self-management. Documentation and inclusion of such vital information will foster a transparent and shared decision-making process that will ultimately lead to the development of practical and user-friendly self-management apps that can enhance the quality of life for diabetes patients.

Indexed as

developmental considerationdiabetes melitusmobile phone appsself-managementsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29929949
PMCPMC6035345
OpenAlexW2801300431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.