ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2021
A Longitudinal Perspective on User Uptake of an Electronic Personal Health Record for Diabetes, With Respect To Patient Demographics.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Federated analytics for non-communicable disease surveillance in the European health data space: a scoping review and conceptual framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Acceptability and implementation of a comprehensive digital diabetes self-management platform (MyWay Diabetes): a qualitative protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Patient Portals as Facilitators of Engagement in Patients With Diabetes and Chronic Heart Disease: Scoping Review of Usage and Usability.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Making Use of Comparable Health Data to Improve Quality of Care and Outcomes in Diabetes: The EUBIROD Review of Diabetes Registries and Data Sources in Europe.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe growing prevalence of diabetes has increased the need for scalable technologies to improve outcomes. My Diabetes My Way (MDMW) is an electronic personal health record (ePHR) available to all people with diabetes in Scotland since 2010, associated with improved clinical outcomes among users. MDMW pulls data from a national clinician-facing informatics platform and provides self-management and educational information. This study aims to describe MDMW user demographics through time with respect to the national diabetes population, with a view to addressing potential health inequalities.
methodsAggregate data were obtained retrospectively from the MDMW database and annual Scottish Diabetes Survey (SDS) from 2010 to 2020. Variables included diabetes type, sex, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and glycemic control. Prevalence of MDMW uptake was calculated using corresponding SDS data as denominators. Comparisons between years and demographic sub-groups were made using Chi- Squared tests.
resultsOverall uptake of MDMW has steadily increased since implementation. By 2020, of all people with T1D or T2D in Scotland, 13% were fully enrolled to MDMW (39,881/312,326). There was proportionately greater numbers of users in younger, more affluent demographic groups (with a clear social gradient) with better glycemic control. As uptake has increased through time, so too has the observed gaps between different demographic sub-groups.
conclusionsThe large number of MDMW users is encouraging, but remains a minority of people with diabetes in Scotland. There is a risk that innovations like MDMW can widen health inequalities and it is incumbent upon healthcare providers to identify strategies to prevent this.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.