Evaluation of Patient Willingness to Adopt Remote Digital Monitoring for Diabetes Management.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 01 2021
04 01 2021
Historique:
entrez:
13
1
2021
pubmed:
14
1
2021
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients will decide whether to adopt remote digital monitoring (RDM) for diabetes by weighing its health benefits against the inconvenience it may cause. To identify the minimum effectiveness patients report they require to adopt 36 different RDM scenarios. This survey study was conducted among adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes living in 30 countries from February to July 2019. Survey participants assessed 3 randomly selected scenarios from a total of 36. Scenarios described different combinations of digital monitoring tools (glucose, physical activity, food monitoring), duration and feedback loops (feedback in consultation vs real-time telefeedback by a health care professional or by artificial intelligence), and data handling modalities (by a public vs private company), reflecting different degrees of RDM intrusiveness in patients' personal lives. Participants assessed the minimum effectiveness for 2 diabetes-related outcomes (reducing hypoglycemic episodes and preventing ophthalmologic complications) for which they would adopt each RDM (from much less effective to much more effective than their current monitoring). Of 1577 individuals who consented to participate, 1010 (64%; 572 [57%] women, median [interquartile range] age, 51 [37-63] years, 524 [52%] with type 1 diabetes) assessed at least 1 vignette. Overall, 2860 vignette assessments were collected. In 1025 vignette assessments (36%), participants would adopt RDM only if it was much more effective at reducing hypoglycemic episodes compared with their current monitoring; in 1835 assessments (65%), participants would adopt RDM if was just as or somewhat more effective. The main factors associated with required effectiveness were food monitoring (β = 0.32; SE, 0.12; P = .009), real-time telefeedback by a health care professional (β = 0.49; SE, 0.15; P = .001), and perceived intrusiveness (β = 0.36; SE, 0.06; P < .001). Minimum required effectiveness varied among participants; 34 of 36 RDM scenarios (94%) were simultaneously required to be just as or less effective by at least 25% of participants and much more effective by at least 25% of participants. Results were similar for participant assessments of scenarios regarding the prevention of ophthalmologic complications. The findings of this study suggest that patients require greater health benefits to adopt more intrusive RDM modalities, food monitoring, and real-time feedback by a health care professional. Patient monitoring devices should be designed to be minimally intrusive. The variability in patients' requirements points to a need for shared decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33439263
pii: 2774901
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33115
pmc: PMC7807289
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2033115Références
Diabetes Care. 2011 Sep;34(9):1934-42
pubmed: 21788632
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019 Oct;21(10):2327-2332
pubmed: 31173451
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Feb 24;112(8):2395-400
pubmed: 25646415
Diabetes Care. 2016 Nov;39(11):2089-2095
pubmed: 27926892
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017 May;19(S2):S4-S11
pubmed: 28541137
Diabet Med. 2009 May;26(5):540-7
pubmed: 19646195
Diabetes Care. 2017 Feb;40(2):181-187
pubmed: 27899489
Soc Stud Sci. 2012 Feb;42(1):121-42
pubmed: 22530385
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Aug;15(8):670-9
pubmed: 23844569
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014 Dec 11;2(4):e57
pubmed: 25499872
Acta Diabetol. 2019 Jun;56(6):667-673
pubmed: 30783823
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 Aug;17(8):563-70
pubmed: 26154338
Diabetes Care. 2018 Dec;41(12):2641-2643
pubmed: 30377184
Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 May;96(5):1236-1247
pubmed: 33487438
Clin Ther. 2015 Jun 01;37(6):1216-25
pubmed: 25869625
Sociol Health Illn. 2008 Mar;30(2):272-88
pubmed: 18290936
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2015 Mar;107(3):348-54
pubmed: 25638452
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010 Jul;12(7):507-15
pubmed: 20597824
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 Jul;17(7):498-509
pubmed: 25830528
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018 Nov;12(6):1101-1107
pubmed: 30132692
Diabetes Care. 2011 Mar;34(3):533-9
pubmed: 21266648
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Aug;15(8):662-9
pubmed: 23844570
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Mar 13;8(2):209-215
pubmed: 24876569
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 16;141(10):813-4
pubmed: 15545682
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016 Mar;18(3):127-35
pubmed: 26950530
Diabetes Care. 2016 May;39(5):e71-3
pubmed: 26989181
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Jun;21(S2):S252-S258
pubmed: 31169428
Soc Sci Med. 1992 Mar;34(5):507-13
pubmed: 1604357
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 May 03;10(3):737-43
pubmed: 26685995
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 16;141(10):771-80
pubmed: 15545677
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011 Jul 01;5(4):860-70
pubmed: 21880227
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009 Mar;11(3):151-8
pubmed: 19216684
J Diabetes Investig. 2018 Jul;9(4):713-725
pubmed: 29380542
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Nov;13(6):1161-1168
pubmed: 30862245
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012 Nov 01;6(6):1328-36
pubmed: 23294777