Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34132640›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Comparing Two Commercially Available Diabetes Apps to Explore Challenges in User Engagement: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study.

Alita Maharaj, David Lim, Rinki Murphy, Anna Serlachius

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alita MaharajDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2228-7263
David LimDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7849-9150
Rinki MurphyDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0043-2423
Anna SerlachiusDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-8351
University of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes apps represent a promising addition to face-to-face self-management interventions, which can be time and resource intensive. However, few randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of diabetes apps, in particular as a stand-alone intervention without additional clinical support.

objectiveWe used a feasibility randomized trial design to investigate differences in user engagement between 2 commercially available apps (free versions of Glucose Buddy and mySugr) over 2 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes. Feasibility was assessed based on recruitment uptake, adherence to the diabetes apps, and follow-up rates. We also hypothesized that the diabetes app mySugr would demonstrate higher user engagement at follow-up due to its use of gamification. We also predicted higher user engagement would be associated with improved self-care behaviors and illness beliefs.

methodsAdults with type 2 diabetes attending outpatient diabetes clinics in Auckland were recruited and randomized (1:1 without blinding) to use either the Glucose Buddy or mySugr diabetes apps. User engagement, self-care behaviors, and illness beliefs were measured 2 weeks after baseline. Spearman rank correlations, Mann-Whitney tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to explore associations between the outcome measures and to investigate possible changes between and within groups. Six participants were interviewed to further explore acceptability and usability.

resultsIn total, 58 participants (29 per group) completed the 2-week follow-up, of whom only 38 reported using the apps (Glucose Buddy: n=20; mySugr: n=18). Both groups reported low engagement (Glucose Buddy: median 4 days; mySugr: median 6.5 days; P=.06; use for both groups: median 10 minutes). No changes were observed in self-care or illness beliefs in either group. Out of the self-care behaviors, only blood glucose testing was significantly associated with minutes of app use (P=.02). The interviews suggested that although both apps were deemed acceptable, they were generally viewed as time-consuming and too complicated to use.

conclusionsLow engagement with both Glucose Buddy and mySugr reflect the challenges associated with engaging users with diabetes apps. Due to low engagement and loss to follow-up, the changes in outcome measures should be interpreted with caution. The results highlight the need for more clinical support as well as involvement from end users and behavior change specialists in order to incorporate evidence-based behavior change techniques to motivate and provide value to users.

trial registrationAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000424202; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374671.

Indexed as

appdiabetesefficacyinterventionmHealthmobile appsrandomized controlled trialself-managementtype 2 diabetesuser engagement

Identifiers

PMID34132640
PMCPMC8277312
OpenAlexW3161815981

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.