Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30291089›Full record

ArticleJMIR diabetes2017

Views of Patients on Using mHealth to Monitor and Prevent Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Qualitative Study.

Chris Boodoo, Julie Ann Perry, Paul John Hunter, Dragos Ioan Duta, Samuel Carl Paul Newhook, General Leung, Karen Cross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR diabetes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

7 authors.

Chris BoodooDepartment of Medical Imaging, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5733-7697
Julie Ann PerryKeenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3482-8223
Paul John HunterKeenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7331-894X
Dragos Ioan DutaDepartment of Medical Imaging, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5322-6693
Samuel Carl Paul NewhookDepartment of Medical Imaging, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2528-5896
General LeungDepartment of Medical Imaging, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5126-846X
Karen CrossKeenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7324-7635

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with diabetes are at risk for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), which can lead to limb loss and a significant decrease in quality of life. Evidence suggests that mHealth can be an effective tool in diabetes self-management. mHealth presents an opportunity for the prevention and monitoring of DFUs. However, there is a paucity of research that explores its effectiveness in the DFU patient population, as well as the views and attitudes of these patients toward technology and mHealth.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore the views, attitudes, and experiences of a diabetic patient population with or at risk of DFUs regarding technology, mHealth, and the diabetic foot.

methodsWe used a qualitative research approach using in-depth interviews with 8 patients with DFUs. Questions were structured around experience with technology, current health practices related to diabetic foot care, and thoughts on using an mHealth device that prevents and monitors DFUs. We transcribed and thematically analyzed all interviews.

resultsAll patients had positive responses for an mHealth intervention aimed at preventing and monitoring DFUs. We found 4 themes in the data: diversity in use of technology, feet-checking habits, 2-way communication with health care professionals (HCPs), and functionality. There were varying levels of familiarity with and dependence on technology within this patient population. These relationships correlated with distinct generations found in North America, including baby boomers and Generation X. Furthermore, we found that most patients performed daily feet checks to monitor any changes in health. However, some did not perform feet checks prior to the development of a DFU. Patients expressed interest in 2-way communication with HCPs that would allow for easier appointment scheduling, sharing of medical data, decreased number of visits, and use of alerts for when medical attention is required. Patients also identified conditions of functionality for the mHealth intervention. These included consideration of debilitating complications because of diabetes, such as retinopathy and decreased mobility; ease of use of the intervention; and implementation of virtual communities to support continued use of the intervention.

conclusionsOur patient population expressed an interest in mHealth for preventing and monitoring DFUs, although some participants were not frequent users of technology. mHealth continues to show potential in improving patient outcomes, and this study provides a foundation for designing interventions specific to a DFU population. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

diabetesdiabetic foot ulcermHealthqualitative researchtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30291089
PMCPMC6238864

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.