4.5 Review

Usability and clinical efficacy of diabetes mobile applications for adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 131, Issue -, Pages 70-81

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.06.016

Keywords

mHealth; Diabetes app; Usability; Efficacy; Mobile app

Funding

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Future of Nursing Scholar Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To assess the usability and clinical effectiveness of diabetes mobile applications (diabetes apps) developed for adults with type 2 diabetes. Method: A systematic review of the usability and effectiveness of diabetes apps was conducted. Searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, COMPENDEX, and IEEE XPLORE for articles published from January 1, 2011, to January 17, 2017. Search terms included: diabetes, mobile apps, and mobile health (mHealth). Results: The search yielded 723 abstracts of which seven usability studies and ten clinical effectiveness studies met the inclusion criteria from 20 publications. Usability, as measured by satisfaction ratings from experts and patients, ranged from 38% to 80%. Usability problem ratings ranged from moderate to catastrophic. Top usability problems are multi-steps task, limited functionality and interaction, and difficult system navigation. Clinical effectiveness, measured by reductions in HbA1c, ranged from 0.15% to 1.9%. Conclusion: Despite meager satisfaction ratings and major usability problems, there is some limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetes apps to improve glycemic control for adults with type 2 diabetes. Findings strongly suggest that efforts to improve user satisfaction, incorporate established principles of health behavior change, and match apps to user characteristics will increase the therapeutic impact of diabetes apps. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available