Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38831294›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Use of systems thinking and adapted group model building methods to understand patterns of technology use among older adults with type 1 diabetes: a preliminary process evaluation.

Anna R Kahkoska, Cambray Smith, Laura A Young, Kristen Hassmiller Lich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. An Age-Adapted Co-Design Methodology for Community Health Research Involving Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Anna R KahkoskaDepartment of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2205A McGavran Greenberg Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. anna_kahkoska@med.unc.edu.
Cambray SmithDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Laura A YoungDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kristen Hassmiller LichDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UM1TR004406 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI NICHOLAS J SHAHEEN · 2023 to 2026
$37.5M
North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS) KL2KL2TR002490 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WEINBERGER, MORRIS · 2018 to 2022
$11.0M
NCATS NIH HHS Grant KL2TR002490NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002490NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004406
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA growing number of older adults (ages 65+) live with Type 1 diabetes. Simultaneously, technologies such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have become standard of care. There is thus a need to understand better the complex dynamics that promote use of CGM (and other care innovations) over time in this age group. Our aim was to adapt methods from systems thinking, specifically a participatory approach to system dynamics modeling called group model building (GMB), to model the complex experiences that may underlie different trajectories of CGM use among this population. Herein, we report on the feasibility, strengths, and limitations of this methodology.

methodsWe conducted a series of GMB workshops and validation interviews to collect data in the form of questionnaires, diagrams, and recordings of group discussion. Data were integrated into a conceptual diagram of the "system" of factors associated with uptake and use of CGM over time. We evaluate the feasibility of each aspect of the study, including the teaching of systems thinking to older adult participants. We collected participant feedback on positive aspects of their experiences and areas for improvement.

resultsWe completed nine GMB workshops with older adults and their caregivers (N = 33). Each three-hour in-person workshop comprised: (1) questionnaires; (2) the GMB session, including both didactic components and structured activities; and (3) a brief focus group discussion. Within the GMB session, individual drawing activities proved to be the most challenging for participants, while group activities and discussion of relevant dynamics over time for illustrative (i.e., realistic but not real) patients yielded rich engagement and sufficient information for system diagramming. Study participants liked the opportunity to share experiences with peers, learning and enhancing their knowledge, peer support, age-specific discussions, the workshop pace and structure, and the systems thinking framework. Participants gave mixed feedback on the workshop duration.

conclusionsThe study demonstrates preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and the value of GMB for engaging older adults about key determinants of complex health behaviors over time. To our knowledge, few studies have extended participatory systems science methods to older adult stakeholders. Future studies may utilize this methodology to inform novel approaches for supporting health across the lifespan.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1AgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesSystems AnalysisContinuous glucose monitoringDiabetesGroup model buildingOlder adultsParticipatory systems scienceQualitative researchSystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID38831294
PMCPMC11145864

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.