This systematic review aimed to explore the enablers and barriers faced by adults with diabetes using two-way information communication technologies to support diabetes self-management.
Methods
Relevant literature was obtained from five databases using search strategies combining four major constructs: adults with diabetes, biomedical technology, communication technology and patient utilisation.
Results
Of 8430 unique articles identified, 48 were included for review. Risk of bias was assessed using either the Newcastle–Ottowa or Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Seventy-one percent of studies were of cohort design with the majority of studies assessed at high or unclear risk of bias. Consistently identified barriers included poorly designed interfaces requiring manual data entry and systems that lacked functionalities valued by patients. Commonly cited enablers included access to reliable technology, highly automated data entry and transmission, graphical display of data with immediate feedback, and supportive health care professionals and family members.
Conclusions
People with diabetes face a number of potentially modifiable barriers in using technology to support their diabetes management. In order to address these barriers, end users should be consulted in the design process and consideration given to theories of technology adoption to inform design and implementation. Systems should be designed to solve clinical or behavioural problems that are identified by patients as priorities. Technology should be as automated, streamlined, mobile, low cost and integrated as possible in order to limit the burden of usage for the patient and maximise clinical usefulness.
GuariguataLWhitingDRHambletonIet al.Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2014; 103: 137–149.
2.
LeeCColagiuriRMaglianoDJet al.The cost of diabetes in adults in Australia. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2013; 99: 385–390.
3.
American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care2014; 37: S81–S90.
4.
HexNBartlettCWrightDet al.Estimating the current and future costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabet Med2012; 29: 855–862.
5.
AholaAJGroopPH. Barriers to self-management of diabetes. Diabet Med2013; 30: 413–420.
6.
HendersonJWilsonCRobertsLet al.Social barriers to Type 2 diabetes self-management: The role of capital. Nurs Inq2014; 21: 336–345.
7.
Martin C, Rivera DE, Riley WT, et al. A dynamical systems model of social cognitive theory. In: American Control Conference (ACC), Portland, Orgeon, 4 June–6 June 2014, paper no. TH17A.5, pp. 2407–2412. IEEE.
8.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGBet al.User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q2003, pp. 425–478.
9.
PalKEastwoodSVMichieSet al.Computer-based diabetes self-management interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2013; 3: 1–150.
10.
El-GayarOTimsinaPNawarNet al.A systematic review of IT for diabetes self-management: Are we there yet?Int J Med Inform2013; 82: 637–652.
11.
DeissDBolinderJRivelineJ-Pet al.Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care2006; 29: 2730–2732.
12.
EarleKAIstepanianRSZitouniKet al.Mobile telemonitoring for achieving tighter targets of blood pressure control in patients with complicated diabetes: A pilot study. Diabetes Technol Ther2010; 12: 575–579.
13.
HommelEOlsenBBattelinoTet al.Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and use of medical care resources: Analyses from the SWITCH study. Acta Diabetol2014; 51: 845–851.
14.
GandhiGYKovalaskeMKudvaYet al.Efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Diabetes Sci Technol2011; 5: 952–965.
15.
ArsandETataraNOstengenGet al.Mobile phone-based self-management tools for type 2 diabetes: The few touch application. J Diabetes Sci Technol2010; 4: 328–336.
16.
HelalACookDJSchmalzM. Smart home-based health platform for behavioral monitoring and alteration of diabetes patients. J Diabetes Sci Technol2009; 3: 141–148.
17.
RiaziHLarijaniBLangarizadehMet al.Managing diabetes mellitus using information technology: A systematic review. J Diabetes Metab Disord2015; 14: 49–57.
18.
AlharbiNSAlsubkiNJonesSet al.Impact of information technology–based interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus on glycemic control: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res2016; 18: e310–e310.
19.
DursoSCWendelILetztAMet al.Older adults using cellular telephones for diabetes management: A pilot study. Medsurg Nurs2003; 12: 313–317.
20.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJet al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Open Med2009; 3: 635–641.
21.
DeeksJJDinnesJD’amicoRet al.Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess2003; 7: 1–173.
22.
Higgins JP and Green SG. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Updated March 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, http://handbook.cochrane.org (accessed 28 November 2016).
23.
HigginsJPAltmanDGGøtzschePCet al.The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ2011; 343: d5928–d5928.
24.
KaufmanDRPatelVLHillimanCet al.Usability in the real world: Assessing medical information technologies in patients’ homes. J Biomed Inform2003; 36: 45–60.
25.
KaufmanDRPevznerJHillimanCet al.Technology topics. Redesigning a telehealth diabetes management program for a digital divide seniors population. Home Health Care Manag Pract2006; 18: 223–234.
26.
SimonACHollemanFGudeWTet al.Safety and usability evaluation of a web-based insulin self-titration system for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Artif Intell Med2013; 59: 23–31.
27.
NijlandNvan Gemert-PijnenJEKeldersSMet al.Factors influencing the use of a Web-based application for supporting the self-care of patients with type 2 diabetes: A longitudinal study. J Med Internet Res2011; 13: e71–e71.
28.
WakiKAizawaKKatoSet al.DialBetics with a multimedia food recording tool, FoodLog: Smartphone-based self-management for type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol2015; 9: 534–540.
29.
OsbornCYMayberryLSWallstonKAet al.Understanding patient portal use: Implications for medication management. J Med Internet Res2013; 15: e133–e133.
30.
JethwaniKLingEMohammedMet al.Diabetes connect: An evaluation of patient adoption and engagement in a web-based remote glucose monitoring program. J Diabetes Sci Technol2012; 6: 1328–1336.
31.
Nijland N, Seydel ER, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, et al. Evaluation of an Internet-based application for supporting self-care of patients with diabetes mellitus type 2. In: International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine, Cancun, Mexico, 1 Feburary–7 Feburary 2009. IEEE.
32.
PalmasWTeresiJMorinPet al.Recruitment and enrollment of rural and urban medically underserved elderly into a randomized trial of telemedicine case management for diabetes care. Telemed J E Health2006; 12: 601–607.
33.
KwonHChoJKimHet al.Development of web-based diabetic patient management system using short message service (SMS). Diabetes Res Clin Pract2004; 66: S133–137.
34.
TurnerJLarsenMTarassenkoLet al.Implementation of telehealth support for patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin treatment: An exploratory study. Inform Prim Care2009; 17: 47–53.
35.
LoganAGMcIsaacWJTislerAet al.Mobile phone-based remote patient monitoring system for management of hypertension in diabetic patients. Am J Hypertens2007; 20: 942–948.
36.
StuckeyMFulkersonRReadEet al.Remote monitoring technologies for the prevention of metabolic syndrome: The Diabetes and Technology for Increased Activity (DaTA) study. J Diabetes Sci Technol2011; 5: 936–944.
37.
GoldbergHIRalstonJDHirschIBet al.Using an Internet comanagement module to improve the quality of chronic disease care. Jt Comm J Qual Saf2003; 29: 443–451.
38.
WaiteMMartinCCurtisSet al.Mobile phone applications and type 1 diabetes: An approach to explore usability issues and the potential for enhanced self-management. Prim Care Diabetes2013; 15: 38–49.
39.
TriefPMSandbergJIzquierdoRet al.Diabetes management assisted by telemedicine: Patient perspectives. Telemed J E Health2008; 14: 647–655.
40.
PlaceJFarretADel FaveroSet al.Assessment of patient perceptions about web telemonitoring applied to artificial pancreas use at home. J Diabetes Sci Technol2014; 8: 225–229.
41.
CavanDAEverettJPlougmannSet al.Use of the Internet to optimize self-management of type 1 diabetes: Preliminary experience with DiasNet. J Telemed Telecare2003; 9 Suppl 1: S50–S52.
42.
ArsandEMuznyMBradwayMet al.Performance of the first combined smartwatch and smartphone diabetes diary application study. J Diabetes Sci Technol2015; 9: 556–563.
43.
WestSPLaguaCTriefPMet al.Goal setting using telemedicine in rural underserved older adults with diabetes: Experiences from the informatics for diabetes education and telemedicine project. Telemed J E Health2010; 16: 405–416.
QuinnCCKhokharBWeedKet al.Older adult self-efficacy study of mobile phone diabetes management. Diabetes Technol Ther2015; 17: 455–461.
46.
GlasgowREStryckerLAKurzDet al.Recruitment for an internet-based diabetes self-management program: Scientific and ethical implications. Ann Behav Med2010; 40: 40–48.
47.
HomkoCJDeebLCRohrbacherKet al.Impact of a telemedicine system with automated reminders on outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther2012; 14: 624–629.
48.
BrathHMorakJKastenbauerTet al.Mobile health (mHealth) based medication adherence measurement – a pilot trial using electronic blisters in diabetes patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol2013; 76 Suppl 1: 47–55.
49.
Martinez-SarrieguiIGarcia-SaezGRiglaMet al.How continuous monitoring changes the interaction of patients with a mobile telemedicine system. J Diabetes Sci Technol2011; 5: 5–12.
50.
WakiKFujitaHUchimuraYet al.DialBetics: A novel smartphone-based self-management support system for type 2 diabetes patients. J Diabetes Sci Technol2014; 8: 209–215.
51.
Bujnowska-FedakMMPuchalaESteciwkoA. The impact of telehome care on health status and quality of life among patients with diabetes in a primary care setting in Poland. Telemed J E Health2011; 17: 153–163.
52.
Bujnowska-FedakMMPuchałaESteciwkoA. Telemedicine for diabetes support in family doctors’ practices: A pilot project. J Telemed Telecare2006; 12: 8–10.
53.
NesAAvan DulmenSEideEet al.The development and feasibility of a web-based intervention with diaries and situational feedback via smartphone to support self-management in patients with diabetes type 2. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2012; 97: 385–393.
54.
WatsonAJKvedarJCRahmanBet al.Diabetes connected health: A pilot study of a patient- and provider-shared glucose monitoring web application. J Diabetes Sci Technol2009; 3: 345–352.
55.
HarringtonDMMyersLKarenEet al.The use of a tablet computer platform to optimize the care of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis: A pilot study. Blood Purif2014; 37: 311–315.
56.
LadyzynskiPWojcickiJMKrzymienJet al.Teletransmission system supporting intensive insulin treatment of out-clinic type 1 diabetic pregnant women. Technical assessment during 3 years’ application. Int J Artif Organs2001; 24: 157–163.
57.
LeeHJLeeSHHaKSet al.Ubiquitous healthcare service using Zigbee and mobile phone for elderly patients. Int J Med Inform2009; 78: 193–198.
58.
LiddyCDusseaultJJDahrougeSet al.Telehomecare for patients with multiple chronic illnesses: Pilot study. Can Fam Physician2008; 54: 58–65.
59.
ChoJHLeeHCLimDJet al.Mobile communication using a mobile phone with a glucometer for glucose control in Type 2 patients with diabetes: As effective as an Internet-based glucose monitoring system. J Telemed Telecare2009; 15: 77–82.
60.
HomkoCJSantamoreWPWhitemanVet al.Use of an internet-based telemedicine system to manage underserved women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther2007; 9: 297–306.
61.
LylesCRHarrisLTLeTet al.Qualitative evaluation of a mobile phone and web-based collaborative care intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2011; 13: 563–569.
62.
FarmerAJGibsonOJDudleyCet al.A randomized controlled trial of the effect of real-time telemedicine support on glycemic control in young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care2005; 28: 2697–2702.
63.
KatalenichBShiLLiuSet al.Evaluation of a remote monitoring system for diabetes control. Clin Ther2015; 37: 1216–1225.
64.
KimHSChoiWBaekEKet al.Efficacy of the smartphone-based glucose management application stratified by user satisfaction. Diabetes Metab J2014; 38: 204–210.
65.
SchreierGEckmannHHaynDet al.Web versus app: Compliance of patients in a telehealth diabetes management programme using two different technologies. J Telemed Telecare2012; 18: 476–480.
66.
RyanJGSchwartzRJenningsTet al.Feasibility of an internet-based intervention for improving diabetes outcomes among low-income patients with a high risk for poor diabetes outcomes followed in a community clinic. Diabetes Educ2013; 39: 365–375.
67.
MayberryLSKripalaniSRothmanRLet al.Bridging the digital divide in diabetes: Family support and implications for health literacy. Diabetes Technol Ther2011; 13: 1005–1012.
68.
SenAPSewellTBRileyEBet al.Financial incentives for home-based health monitoring: A randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med2014; 29: 770–777.
69.
TangTSDigbyEMWrightAMet al.Real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus internet-based blood glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes: A study of treatment satisfaction. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2014; 106: 481–486.
70.
BoulosMNWheelerSTavaresCet al.How smartphones are changing the face of mobile and participatory healthcare: an overview, with example from eCAALYX. Biomed Eng Online2011; 10: 1–14.
71.
NabiRMMohammedRANabiRM. Smartphones platform security: A comparison study. Int J Adv Res Computer Sci Software Eng2015; 5: 44–48.
72.
Wasserman AI. Software engineering issues for mobile application development. In: FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering research, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 7 November-8 November 2010, pp.397-400. New York: ACM.
73.
RhoMJKimHSChungKet al.Factors influencing the acceptance of telemedicine for diabetes management. Cluster Comput2014; 18: 321–331.
74.
SheppardBHHartwickJWarshawPR. The theory of reasoned action: A meta analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. J Consum Res1988; 15: 325–343.
75.
KohnkeAColeMLBushR. Incorporating UTAUT predictors for understanding home care patients’ and clinicians’ acceptance of healthcare telemedicine equipment. J Technol Manag Innov2014; 9: 29–41.
76.
DavisFD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q1989; 13: 319–340.
77.
LeeJRhoMJ. Perception of influencing factors on acceptance of mobile health monitoring service: A comparison between users and non-users. Health Inform Res2013; 19: 167–176.
78.
NundySDickJJGodduAPet al.Using mobile health to support the chronic care model: Developing an institutional initiative. Int J Telemed Appl2012, pp. 8–16.
