Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31516127›Full record

Trial reportJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

A Smartphone App to Improve Medication Adherence in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Asia: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

Zhilian Huang, Eberta Tan, Elaine Lum, Peter Sloot, Bernhard Otto Boehm, Josip Car

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 52 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Zhilian HuangCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-4445-1669
Eberta TanDepartment of Endocrinology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4416-5264
Elaine LumCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-0853-3018
Peter SlootComplexity Institute, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-3848-5395
Bernhard Otto BoehmLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2706-7710
Josip CarCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8969-371X
Nanyang Technological University · SGChangi General Hospital · SGQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe efficacy of smartphone apps for improving medication adherence in type 2 diabetes is not well studied in Asian populations.

objectiveThis study aimed to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical outcomes of using a smartphone app to improve medication adherence in a multiethnic Asian population with type 2 diabetes.

methodsWe block randomized 51 nonadherent and digitally literate patients with type 2 diabetes between the ages of 21 and 75 years into two treatment arms (control: usual care; intervention: usual care+Medisafe app) and followed them up for 12 weeks. Recruitment occurred at a public tertiary diabetes specialist outpatient center in Singapore. The intervention group received email reminders to complete online surveys monthly, while the control group only received an email reminder(s) at the end of the study. Barriers to medication adherence and self-appraisal of diabetes were assessed using the Adherence Starts with Knowledge-12 (ASK-12) and Appraisal of Diabetes Scale (ADS) questionnaires at baseline and poststudy in both groups. Perception toward medication adherence and app usage, attitude, and satisfaction were assessed in the intervention group during and after the follow-up period. Sociodemographic data were collected at baseline. Clinical data (ie, hemoglobin A

resultsA total of 51 (intervention group: 25 [49%]; control group: 26 [51%]) participants were randomized, of which 41 (intervention group: 22 [88.0%]; control group: 19 [73.1%]) completed the poststudy survey. The baseline-adjusted poststudy ASK-12 score was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference: 4.7, P=.01). No changes were observed in the clinical outcomes. The average 12-week medication adherence rate of participants tracked by the app was between 38.3% and 100% in the intervention group. The majority (>80%) of the participants agreed that the app was easy to use and made them more adherent to their medication.

conclusionsOur feasibility study showed that among medication-nonadherent patients with type 2 diabetes, a smartphone app intervention was acceptable, improved awareness of medication adherence, and reduced self-reported barriers to medication adherence, but did not improve clinical outcomes in a developed Asian setting.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Drug MonitoringFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsSelf ReportSingaporeSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcomefeasibility trialmedication adherencemobile phone appspilot studysmartphone appstype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID31516127
PMCPMC6746066
OpenAlexW2972747751

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.