Role of Caregivers in Remote Management of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review of Literature

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

With the growing use of remote monitoring technologies in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), caregivers are becoming important resources that can be tapped into to improve patient care.

Objective

This review aims to summarize the role of caregivers in the remote monitoring of patients with T2DM.

Methods

We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science up to 2022. Studies that evaluated the role of caregivers in remote management of adult patients with T2DM were included. Outcomes such as diabetes control, adherence to medication, quality of life, frequency of home glucose monitoring, and health care use were evaluated.

Results

Of the 1198 identified citations, 11 articles were included. The majority of studies were conducted in North America (7/11, 64%) and South America (2/11, 18%). The main types of caregivers studied were family or friends (10/11, 91%), while the most common remote monitoring modalities evaluated were interactive voice response (5/11, 45%) and phone consultations (4/11, 36%). With regard to diabetes control, 3 of 6 studies showed improvement in diabetes-related laboratory parameters. A total of 2 studies showed improvements in patients’ medication adherence rates and frequency of home glucose monitoring. Studies that evaluated patients’ quality of life showed mixed evidence. In 1 study, increased hospitalization rates were noted in the intervention group.

Conclusions

Caregivers may play a role in improving clinical outcomes among patients with T2DM under remote monitoring. Studies on mobile health technologies are lacking to understand their impact on Asian populations and long-term patient outcomes.

Related collections

Most cited references 58

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

CONSORT-EHEALTH: Improving and Standardizing Evaluation Reports of Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions

(2011)

Background Web-based and mobile health interventions (also called “Internet interventions” or "eHealth/mHealth interventions") are tools or treatments, typically behaviorally based, that are operationalized and transformed for delivery via the Internet or mobile platforms. These include electronic tools for patients, informal caregivers, healthy consumers, and health care providers. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While the CONSORT statement can be applied to provide broad guidance on how eHealth and mHealth trials should be reported, RCTs of web-based interventions pose very specific issues and challenges, in particular related to reporting sufficient details of the intervention to allow replication and theory-building. Objective To develop a checklist, dubbed CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine TeleHealth), as an extension of the CONSORT statement that provides guidance for authors of eHealth and mHealth interventions. Methods A literature review was conducted, followed by a survey among eHealth experts and a workshop. Results A checklist instrument was constructed as an extension of the CONSORT statement. The instrument has been adopted by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) and authors of eHealth RCTs are required to submit an electronic checklist explaining how they addressed each subitem. Conclusions CONSORT-EHEALTH has the potential to improve reporting and provides a basis for evaluating the validity and applicability of eHealth trials. Subitems describing how the intervention should be reported can also be used for non-RCT evaluation reports. As part of the development process, an evaluation component is essential; therefore, feedback from authors will be solicited, and a before-after study will evaluate whether reporting has been improved.

0 comments Cited 453 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Effectiveness of mHealth interventions for patients with diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews

Spyros Kitsiou, Guy Paré, Mirou Jaana … (2017)

Background Diabetes is a common chronic disease that places an unprecedented strain on health care systems worldwide. Mobile health technologies such as smartphones, mobile applications, and wearable devices, known as mHealth, offer significant and innovative opportunities for improving patient to provider communication and self-management of diabetes. Objective The purpose of this overview is to critically appraise and consolidate evidence from multiple systematic reviews on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for patients with diabetes to inform policy makers, practitioners, and researchers. Methods A comprehensive search on multiple databases was performed to identify relevant systematic reviews published between January 1996 and December 2015. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR. Results Fifteen systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the reviews varied considerably and most of them had important methodological limitations. Focusing on systematic reviews that offered the most direct evidence, this overview demonstrates that on average, mHealth interventions improve glycemic control (HbA1c) compared to standard care or other non-mHealth approaches by as much as 0.8% for patients with type 2 diabetes and 0.3% for patients with type 1 diabetes, at least in the short-term (≤12 months). However, limitations in the overall quality of evidence suggest that further research will likely have an important impact in these estimates of effect. Conclusions Findings are consistent with clinically relevant improvements, particularly with respect to patients with type 2 diabetes. Similar to home telemonitoring, mHealth interventions represent a promising approach for self-management of diabetes.

0 comments Cited 156 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

What Is eHealth (3): A Systematic Review of Published Definitions

Hans Oh, Carlos Rizo, Murray Enkin … (2005)

Context The term eHealth is widely used by many individuals, academic institutions, professional bodies, and funding organizations. It has become an accepted neologism despite the lack of an agreed-upon clear or precise definition. We believe that communication among the many individuals and organizations that use the term could be improved by comprehensive data about the range of meanings encompassed by the term. Objective To report the results of a systematic review of published, suggested, or proposed definitions of eHealth. Data Sources Using the search query string “eHealth” OR “e-Health” OR “electronic health”, we searched the following databases: Medline and Premedline (1966-June 2004), EMBASE (1980-May 2004), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2004), Web of Science (all years), Information Sciences Abstracts (1966-May 2004), Library Information Sciences Abstracts (1969-May 2004), and Wilson Business Abstracts (1982-March 2004). In addition, we searched dictionaries and an Internet search engine. Study Selection We included any source published in either print format or on the Internet, available in English, and containing text that defines or attempts to define eHealth in explicit terms. Two of us independently reviewed titles and abstracts of citations identified in the bibliographic databases and Internet search, reaching consensus on relevance by discussion. Data Extraction We retrieved relevant reports, articles, references, letters, and websites containing definitions of eHealth. Two of us qualitatively analyzed the definitions and coded them for content, emerging themes, patterns, and novel ideas. Data Synthesis The 51 unique definitions that we retrieved showed a wide range of themes, but no clear consensus about the meaning of the term eHealth. We identified 2 universal themes (health and technology) and 6 less general (commerce, activities, stakeholders, outcomes, place, and perspectives). Conclusions The widespread use of the term eHealth suggests that it is an important concept, and that there is a tacit understanding of its meaning. This compendium of proposed definitions may improve communication among the many individuals and organizations that use the term.

0 comments Cited 117 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Lian Leng Low:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4228-2862

SingHealth Regional Health System PULSES CentreSingapore Health Services1 Hospital DriveSingapore, 169608Singapore65 6222 3322low.lian.leng@singhealth.com.sg

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Med Internet Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Med Internet Res

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMIR

Title: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Print): 1439-4456

ISSN (Electronic): 1438-8871

Publication date Collection: 2023

Publication date (Electronic): 11 September 2023

Volume: 25

Electronic Location Identifier: e46988

Affiliations

[1 ] MOH Holding Private Limited Singapore Singapore

[2 ] SingHealth Regional Health System PULSES Centre Singapore Health Services Singapore Singapore

[3 ] Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Singapore Singapore

[4 ] Department of Pharmacy Singapore General Hospital Singapore Singapore

[5 ] Department of Pharmacy National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore

[6 ] Program in Health Services and Systems Research Singapore Singapore

[7 ] Department of Rheumatology and Immunology Singapore General Hospital Singapore Singapore

[8 ] Department of Family Medicine and Continuing Care Singapore General Hospital Singapore Singapore

[9 ] Outram Community Hospital SingHealth Community Hospitals Singapore Singapore

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Lian Leng Low low.lian.leng@ 123456singhealth.com.sg

Author information

Jun Jie Benjamin Seng https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3039-3816

Meng Ferng Ryan Gwee https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1714-9584

Mei Hui Amanda Yong https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3260-4696

Yu Heng Kwan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7802-9696

Julian Thumboo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6712-5535

Lian Leng Low https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4228-2862

Article

Publisher ID: v25i1e46988

DOI: 10.2196/46988

PMC ID: 10520771

PubMed ID: 37695663

SO-VID: d671aafa-570d-4754-80a4-19a0265e7abe

Copyright © ©Jun Jie Benjamin Seng, Meng Ferng Ryan Gwee, Mei Hui Amanda Yong, Yu Heng Kwan, Julian Thumboo, Lian Leng Low. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 11.09.2023.

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 4 March 2023

Date revision requested : 21 April 2023

Date revision received : 24 April 2023

Date accepted : 31 July 2023

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Cited by 2

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 446

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access