Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32628125›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Methods and Evaluation Criteria for Apps and Digital Interventions for Diabetes Self-Management: Systematic Review.

Dillys Larbi, Pietro Randine, Eirik Årsand, Konstantinos Antypas, Meghan Bradway, Elia Gabarron

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.2field-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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. One Digital Health for more FAIRness.Methods of information in medicine · 2022
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dillys LarbiNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1556-017X
Pietro RandineNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7188-0138
Eirik ÅrsandNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9520-1408
Konstantinos AntypasNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1048-688X
Meghan BradwayNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-4540-225X
Elia GabarronNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7188-550X
University Hospital of North Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing evidence that apps and digital interventions have a positive impact on diabetes self-management. Standard self-management for patients with diabetes could therefore be supplemented by apps and digital interventions to increase patients' skills. Several initiatives, models, and frameworks suggest how health apps and digital interventions could be evaluated, but there are few standards for this. And although there are many methods for evaluating apps and digital interventions, a more specific approach might be needed for assessing digital diabetes self-management interventions.

objectiveThis review aims to identify which methods and criteria are used to evaluate apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management, and to describe how patients were involved in these evaluations.

methodsWe searched CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science for articles published from 2015 that referred to the evaluation of apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management and involved patients in the evaluation. We then conducted a narrative qualitative synthesis of the findings, structured around the included studies' quality, methods of evaluation, and evaluation criteria.

resultsOf 1681 articles identified, 31 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 7 articles were considered of high confidence in the evidence. Apps were the most commonly used platform for diabetes self-management (18/31, 58%), and type 2 diabetes (T2D) was the targeted health condition most studies focused on (12/31, 38%). Questionnaires, interviews, and user-group meetings were the most common methods of evaluation. Furthermore, the most evaluated criteria for apps and digital diabetes self-management interventions were cognitive impact, clinical impact, and usability. Feasibility and security and privacy were not evaluated by studies considered of high confidence in the evidence.

conclusionsThere were few studies with high confidence in the evidence that involved patients in the evaluation of apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management. Additional evaluation criteria, such as sustainability and interoperability, should be focused on more in future studies to provide a better understanding of the effects and potential of apps and digital interventions for diabetes self-management.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansMobile ApplicationsSelf-ManagementTelemedicinecomputer communication networksdiabetes mellituseHealthhealth care evaluation mechanismsmHealthmobile applicationsself-management

Identifiers

PMID32628125
PMCPMC7381260
OpenAlexW3038986362

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.