4.6 Article

Telemedicine: What more is needed for its integration in everyday life?

Journal

DIABETES & METABOLISM
Volume 37, Issue -, Pages S71-S77

Publisher

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/S1262-3636(11)70969-7

Keywords

Telemedicine; Type 1 and type 2 diabetes; Medical device; Smart-phone; Education; Organization of healthcare; Review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Health Authorities have huge expectations of telemedicine (TM): improved patient access to healthcare, a solution to the shortage of doctors in the face of an exponentially expanding disease, and reduced healthcare costs with improved quality. There are a host of applications for TM in the area of diabetes. TM has been validated and has been widely used to screen for diabetic retinopathy, and a number of studies are currently underway for the follow-up of diabetic foot ulcers. However, the main indication of TM remains the follow-up and control of blood glucose. In this area, many studies have been conducted to improve glycaemic control. While most of these studies have failed to show any benefits vs. conventional care, a small number have demonstrated great efficacy of this approach with regard to glycaemia. Using these studies, we attempt to define the key qualities of a successful TM system. How can we extend the results of these experiments beyond the framework of clinical studies and integrate them in daily practice so as to improve diabetes management? This is the key challenge for TM, implementation of which will require reorganization of healthcare, given the evolution of medical demographics. This reorganization will involve healthcare providers specialized in diabetes that may intervene in assigning physicians for especially distressed patients. However, such reorganization will require medico-economic evaluation before it can be implemented on a larger scale. (C) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available