Published on in Vol 7, No 3 (2022): Jul-Sep

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/28153, first published .
Diabetes Self-management Apps: Systematic Review of Adoption Determinants and Future Research Agenda

Diabetes Self-management Apps: Systematic Review of Adoption Determinants and Future Research Agenda

Diabetes Self-management Apps: Systematic Review of Adoption Determinants and Future Research Agenda

Review

1Department of Clinical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom

2School of Health & Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom

3Saudi Ministry of Health, Najran, Saudi Arabia

4Department of Information Science, College of Computing Sciences and Engineering, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait

Corresponding Author:

Ilhem Berrou, PhD

School of Health & Social Wellbeing

University of the West of England

2B03 Glenside Campus

Bristol, BS16 1DD

United Kingdom

Phone: 44 1173284053 ext 4053

Email: ilhem.berrou@uwe.ac.uk


Background: Most diabetes management involves self-management. Effective self-management of the condition improves diabetes control, reduces the risk of complications, and improves patient outcomes. Mobile apps for diabetes self-management (DSM) can enhance patients’ self-management activities. However, they are only effective if clinicians recommend them, and patients use them.

Objective: This study aimed to explore the determinants of DSM apps’ use by patients and their recommendations by health care professionals (HCPs). It also outlines the future research agenda for using DSM apps in diabetes care.

Methods: We systematically reviewed the factors affecting the adoption of DSM apps by both patients and HCPs. Searches were performed using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, ACM, and Xplore digital libraries for articles published from 2008 to 2020. The search terms were diabetes, mobile apps, and self-management. Relevant data were extracted from the included studies and analyzed using a thematic synthesis approach.

Results: A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. We identified a range of determinants related to patients’ and HCPs’ characteristics, experiences, and preferences. Young female patients were more likely to adopt DSM apps. Patients’ perceptions of the benefits of apps, ease of use, and recommendations by patients and other HCPs strongly affect their intention to use DSM apps. HCPs are less likely to recommend these apps if they do not perceive their benefits and may not recommend their use if they are unaware of their existence or credibility. Young and technology-savvy HCPs were more likely to recommend DSM apps.

Conclusions: Despite the potential of DSM apps to improve patients’ self-care activities and diabetes outcomes, HCPs and patients remain hesitant to use them. However, the COVID-19 pandemic may hasten the integration of technology into diabetes care. The use of DSM apps may become a part of the new normal.

JMIR Diabetes 2022;7(3):e28153

doi:10.2196/28153

Keywords



Background

Diabetes prevalence continues to increase worldwide, affecting 1 in 11 people [1]. Persistent hyperglycemia leads to the development of microvascular and macrovascular complications and increases the risk of death; this risk is highest in the young age group [2]. The management of diabetes-induced cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease requires heavy health care resource consumption and up to a 4-fold increase in health care costs [3]. Type 2 diabetes is the most prevalent form of this condition and is characterized by persistent hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. Most patients are managed in primary care settings, and given the increasing prevalence, health care settings are experiencing unprecedented demands for clinical appointments and input from health care professionals (HCPs). This often means that patients have limited time with clinicians to discuss diabetes management and optimize treatment [4]. Diabetes self-management (DSM) can improve glycemic control and reduce the risk of complications [5].

Most diabetes management is thought to involve self-management [6]. The term self-management is often used interchangeably with self-care. Self-care refers to behaviors and activities undertaken to manage acute illnesses or injuries, with a focus on treatment [7]. Self-management is a more appropriate term when describing the strategies that patients use to cope with the emotional and practical issues encountered while living with a long-term illness [7]. For patients living with type 2 diabetes, DSM entails adherence to prescribed medication, maintaining a healthy diet, regular physical activity, routine foot checks, frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels if using insulin or sulfonylureas, and managing symptoms of low or very high glucose levels [8]. Patients also have to cope with the reality of diabetic microvascular and macrovascular complications [9] and an increased risk of disability and death [10]. Therefore, DSM education and support is paramount, especially at the point of diagnosis, to influence patients’ behaviors and enhance their engagement with diabetes care [11]. When first diagnosed, patients usually receive DSM education and support from HCPs, followed by ongoing support from other practitioners and community resources [11].

HCPs are increasingly supporting autonomous DSM given the current strain on health care resources [5] and the fact that face-to-face consultations and education courses may not work for everyone. Digital technology has been shown to encourage autonomy and improve diabetes outcomes [12]. Digital and wireless technologies are widely available to support lifestyle and treatment interventions as well as diabetes medical devices, such as blood glucose meters, continuous glucose monitoring devices, and smart insulin pens and pumps [13]. However, mobile health (mHealth) apps for diabetes management are at the forefront of innovations that support DSM. A range of diabetes health apps are available, including nutrition, physical activity, glucose monitoring, insulin titration and delivery, and artificial pancreas systems [13].

Mobile apps have been shown to reduce the barriers to self-management activities, as they provide diabetes education, data logging and trend viewing, and connecting and transferring data to HCPs [14]. Furthermore, mobile apps can be useful elements in effectively modifying lifestyles [15]. The use of apps can lead to a significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c levels among patients with type 2 diabetes [16], improve communication with HCPs, and facilitate remote disease monitoring [17].

Objectives

Several studies have reported factors that affect patients’ adoption (use) of diabetes management apps, including patients’ characteristics and experiences, app characteristics and functions, and recommendations by HCPs and other patients [18]. Various theoretical lenses have been used to explore app adoption, including the technology acceptance model and the diffusion of innovation theory [19], theory of reasoned action, and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology [20]. However, very few studies examined the antecedents influencing HCPs’ recommendation of DSM apps to their patients and integrating them into their practice [21]. Although many studies have explored the factors that affect patients’ adoption of DSM mobile apps using varying study designs and sample sizes, a systematic overview of these factors and their importance remains missing. Thus, this paper aimed to systematically review the determinants of DSM app adoption by HCPs and patients, highlighting their significance in facilitating or hindering their use. The term adoption will be used throughout to indicate patients’ use of DSM apps and HCPs recommendation of these apps or integrating them in their practice.

This review makes 3 main contributions. First, it provides a comprehensive and systematic review of all studied determinants of DSM app adoption by HCPs and patients. Second, this review highlights the significance of each of these determinants based on the frequency of reporting and the type and sample size of the reporting studies. This will inform commissioners and diabetes app developers of what patients and HCPs look for in DSM apps and the circumstances in which they decide to adopt or reject their use. Third, this review combined patients’ and HCPs’ perspectives on the determinants of DSM app adoption. This is critical because DSM apps can only be effective if HCPs recommend them, and patients use them.


Data Sources and Searches

We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, ACM digital library, IEEE Xplore digital library and Cochrane Central using the terms “adoption (uptake, acceptance, use, implement),” “mobile apps (apps, mHealth, smartphones, digital health intervention),” and “T2DM (diabetes mellitus, type 2, chronic conditions, long-term conditions).” We also checked the references of the selected studies and the references of systematic reviews exploring the use of mobile apps for DSM. Multimedia Appendix 1 [22-49] lists the search strategy used for PubMed. The search strategy for PubMed was adapted to search other databases.

Eligibility Criteria

We included original studies published between 2008 (when the main app stores, iOS and Android, were launched) and February 2020, which reported on the factors affecting the adoption of self-management apps for diabetes care, involving patients with type 2 diabetes, and HCPs, or stakeholders, or caregivers dealing with patients with diabetes, using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. We did not exclude studies involving patients with type 2 and type 1 diabetes, patients with type 2 diabetes and other comorbidities, or patients who did not specify their diabetes type. This was done to ensure the inclusion of all relevant studies involving patients with type 2 diabetes.

Adoption refers to the decision to proceed with the full or partial implementation of an innovation [50]. In this study, the term adoption specifically refers to patients’ use of DSM apps and HCPs’ recommendation of these apps and integrating them in their practice. Mobile apps are defined as “software applications that can be executed on a mobile platform or a web-based software application that is tailored to a mobile platform but is executed on a server” [51]. Studies on health informatics or digital health intervention or health information technology or telemedicine or telehealth or mHealth have been included in this review if the use of mobile diabetes apps is clearly highlighted. We excluded studies reporting on digital health interventions that did not involve the use of a mobile app, including the use of other mobile functions (eg, calls and SMS).

In all, 2 reviewers (HA and AA) independently screened the titles and abstracts and then full texts to select eligible studies. Reviewers resolved disagreements through discussion or, if necessary, through discussion with an arbitrator (IB).

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by HA and verified by IB, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion within the review team. For studies reporting on mHealth in general, including mobile apps, and eHealth in general, including mobile apps, careful extraction of data relating to mobile apps was performed whenever possible. Critical appraisal skill program tools [52] were used for the quality assessment of qualitative studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies. To cover the quality assessment of cross-sectional studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute critical tools for observational studies were used [53]. The quality of the included studies was independently assessed by HA and DA. The reviewers resolved the discrepancies through discussion.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

To generate new insights from the included studies, the thematic synthesis methodology of Thomas and Harden (2008) [54] was used, as it provides a clear process for synthesizing qualitative data reported in different study designs. This process of data synthesis follows 3 steps: line-by-line coding, organization of free codes to build descriptive themes and the development of analytical themes.

Descriptive data related to the study design, participant type and age, sample size, types of mobile apps used, and study outcomes were extracted. Data pertaining to the factors affecting participants’ use of mobile apps for DSM were independently coded by 2 reviewers (HA and IB). Discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion and the coding frame was modified accordingly. Similarities between codes were highlighted, and codes were stratified into (descriptive) themes to describe data patterns. This was followed by synthesizing or interrogating descriptive themes to develop analytical themes. Although this method is mainly used to synthesize evidence from qualitative studies, it remains a useful approach for synthesizing qualitative data that can be reported in quantitative studies. In their review of systematic reviews, Hong et al [55] noted that data-based convergent synthesis design was commonly used, where data from qualitative and quantitative studies were analyzed using the same synthesis method, and the results are presented together.


Characteristics of the Included Studies

A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Figure 1 illustrates the study selection process. We identified 1752 citations from 6 databases (291 articles from ACM, 302 from IEEE Xplore, 514 from Scopus, 302 from PubMed, 149 from Cochrane Library, and 159 from CINAHL). A total of 131 articles passed title screening, and 55 articles passed the abstract screening. From the 55 articles, 27 (49%) articles were eliminated during full-text screening: 2 records were not about mHealth, 2 records were study protocols, 8 records were about app development, 7 records about testing new apps, 7 records were about the impact of mobile apps on diabetes self-management (DSM), and 1 record was about using mobile apps as tools for collecting data. All retrieved articles were published between 2015 and 2019. Most studies (10/28, 36%) were conducted in the United States [21-24,50-55], followed by Canada (3/28, 11%) [25-27] and the United Kingdom (3/28, 11%) [28-30]. In addition, (2/28, 7%) studies were conducted in each of the following countries: Australia [31,32], Saudi Arabia [33,34], and Germany [35,36]. Furthermore, of 28 studies, 1 (4%) study was conducted in each of the following countries: Peru [37], Denmark [38], Rwanda [39], New Zealand [40], Norway [41], and China [42].

The study design of the retrieved papers included qualitative design in 50% (14/28) of the studies [25,26,28,30-32,34,36-38,43-46,48], cross-sectional design in 43% (12/28) of the studies [22,23,27,29,33,35,36,39-42,47,49], cohort design in 4% (1/28) of the studies [24], and mixed methods (cross-sectional design and qualitative design) in 4% (1/28) of the studies [36]. Most studies were primary (26/28, 92%). The data in one study was reported from app entries [24], and another study used secondary data from a national survey [27]. The quality of most included studies was moderate to high (11 and 12, respectively). In all, 18% (5/28) of the studies were of low quality (Multimedia Appendix 1). Most studies were rated as valuable, despite the quality assessment score.

Figure 1. Study selection flow chart.
View this figure

The Participants’ Characteristics

The participants in 36% (10/28) of the studies included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) only [26,29,32-34,37-39,45,48], 18% (5/28) of the studies included patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and T2DM [22,35,43,46,47], and 7% (2/28) of the studies included patients with diabetes mellitus without specifying the type [25,41]. In 11% (3/28) of the studies, patients had chronic conditions, including diabetes [24,27,31], and 11% (3/28) of the studies included patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease [30,42,44]. In addition, 14% (4/28) of the studies included patients and HCPs [36,44,47,49]; 4% (1/28) of the studies included patients with diabetes, HCPs, and research assistants [30] and 4% (1/28) of the studies were conducted exclusively with HCPs [23]. The HCPs included in the studies were dietitians, nurses, diabetes educators, community pharmacists, physicians, and podiatrists. A study included HCPs and decision makers [40], and another study included patients with prediabetes or T2DM and family, friends, and HCPs [28].

Most of the included studies (20/28, 71%) recruited <100 participants, 14% (4/28) of the studies had 100 to 500 participants [25,35,41,47], 7% (2/28) of the studies had 500 to 1000 participants [24,39], and 11% (3/28) of the studies recruited >1000 participants [27,42,49].

All studies involved patients aged >18 years, except for a study that involved patients aged <18 years [41]. On average, the patients taking part in the included studies were in their 30s in one study [46], 40s [27] in another study, 50s in studies (9/26, 35%) [25,31,33,34,37,42,45,47,49], and 60s in studies (7/26, 27%) [22,25,29,39,43,44,48]. A total of 4 studies did not report the patients’ age [28,30,35,36], and 3 studies reported a range of patient ages [24,38,41]. For the studies involving HCPs, a study reported the mean age of 38 (SD 6.2) years [44], 4 studies only provided the participants’ age range [23,33,47,49] and one study did not report the age of the participants [36].

mHealth Interventions

Various mHealth interventions were explored in the reviewed studies. A total of 21 studies examined mHealth apps for diabetes, and 4 studies explored mHealth interventions for diabetes, including mobile apps [22,35,37,40]. In addition, 3 studies explored eHealth interventions for diabetes, including mHealth mobile apps [31,33,45].

Multimedia Appendix 2 [22-49] summarizes the study design, participant characteristics, mHealth interventions used, key outcomes, and determinants of app adoption reported in the included studies.

Factors Affecting the Adoption of DSM Apps

This part is organized into two main sections: (1) factors affecting patients’ use of DSM apps and (2) factors affecting HCPs’ recommendation of DSM apps. Each section is further divided into subsections. The included studies identified many factors that were facilitators or barriers to adoption, which were weighed against the study design and sample size to highlight the prevalence of the reported factors.

Factors Affecting Patients’ Use of DSM Apps

The patients’ sociodemographic and diabetes characteristics, perceptions and experiences, and desired app characteristics determine the likelihood of app adoption.

The Patient’s Sociodemographic and Diabetes Characteristics

A total of 33% (9/27) of studies found that younger patients were more likely to use DSM apps [22,35,39,41,42,45,47,49]. In addition, 3 studies reported that female patients [35,41,42] and those with a higher level of education were more likely to engage in DSM app use [41,42,49]. Ernsting et al [42] reported that health app users have a higher level of eHealth literacy (the ability to use information technology for health); the higher the eHealth literacy, the more likely patients will adopt DSM apps. A large cross-sectional study by Zhang et al [49], involving 1276 patients revealed that patients with a higher monthly income are more likely to adopt diabetes apps.

Technology use also affects patients’ adoption of DSM apps. A total of 3 studies showed that smartphone users are more likely to use health apps [22,24,35]. Furthermore 8 studies reported that patients who do not know how to use apps or find apps difficult to use were less likely to use DSM apps [25,26,38,39,43-46]. Finally, 5 studies reported that training patients on how to use apps improves their adoption [34,39,41,43,44].

The duration of diagnosis, frequency of blood glucose monitoring and physical activity, and diabetes control affect patients’ adoption of DSM apps. A total of 3 studies reported that newly diagnosed patients were more likely to use DSM apps [32,33,39]. In addition, patients who regularly monitor their blood glucose levels [39] and undertake regular physical activity [42] were more likely to adopt DSM apps. Patients whose diabetes is adequately controlled and who are not experiencing diabetic complications are less likely to adopt DSM apps [38,44]. Table 1 presents the patients’ sociodemographic and diabetes characteristics that affected their use of DSM apps.

Table 1. Patients’ sociodemographic and diabetes characteristics (N=5396).
Themes, factors, and definitionsSample size (participants), n (%)Study typeReference
Patients’ characteristics

Age: younger patients are more likely to use DSMa apps


12 (0.22)Qualitative[45]


189 (3.5)Cross-sectional[47]


233 (4.32)Cross-sectional[35]


44 (0.82)Cross-sectional[33]


1500 (27.8)Cross-sectional[42]


60 (1.11)Cross-sectional[22]


796 (14.75)Cross-sectional[39]


355 (6.58)Cross-sectional[41]


1276 (23.65)Cross-sectional[49]

Gender: female patients are more likely to use DSM apps


233 (4.32)Cross-sectional[35]


1500 (27.8)Cross-sectional[42]


355 (6.58)Cross-sectional[41]

Education: the higher the level of education, the more engaged is the patient in app use


1500 (27.8)Cross-sectional[42]


355 (6.58)Cross-sectional[41]


1276 (23.65)Cross-sectional[49]

eHealth literacy: health app users had higher levels of eHealth literacy1500 (27.8)Cross-sectional[42]

Monthly income: patients with higher income are more likely to use DSM apps1276 (23.65)Cross-sectional[49]

Technology use


Smartphone users are more interested in using health apps



233 (4.32)Cross-sectional[35]



60 (1.11)Cross-sectional[22]



503 (9.32)Cohort[24]


Patients with difficulties in using new technology are less likely to use DSM apps



29 (0.54)Qualitative[44]



30 (0.56)Qualitative[38]



21 (0.34)Qualitative[46]



12 (0.22)Qualitative[45]



287 (5.32)Qualitative[25]



18 (0.33)Qualitative[26]



16 (0.3)Qualitative[43]



796 (14.75)Cross-sectional[39]


Training on how to use an app improves its adoption



29 (0.54)Qualitative[44]



11 (0.2)Qualitative[34]



16 (0.3)Qualitative[43]



355 (6.58)Cross-sectional[41]



796 (14.75)Cross-sectional[39]
Diabetes characteristics

Length of diagnosis: newly diagnosed patients are more likely to use DSM apps


16 (0.3)Qualitative[32]


44 (0.82)Cross-sectional[33]


796 (14.75)Cross-sectional[39]

Frequent monitoring of blood glucose levels: patients who frequently monitor sugar levels are more likely to use DSM apps796 (14.75)Cross-sectional[39]

Being active: physically active patients are more likely to use DSM apps1500 (27.8)Cross-sectional[42]

Controlled patients: patients not experiencing problems with diabetes are less likely to use DSM apps


29 (0.54)Qualitative[44]


30 (0.56)Qualitative[38]

aDSM: diabetes self-management.

The Patients’ Perceptions and Experiences

A total of 10 studies reported that patients were confident in their DSM without the need for apps, and they did not perceive or were uncertain of the benefits of DSM apps [26,27,32,34,36,38,39,43,47,48]. Interestingly, in 2 smaller qualitative studies, patients reported that they would not use DSM apps, as this puts them in full control of their diabetes and makes them accountable for their behaviors [26,45].

In addition, 2 studies reported that patients would not use DSM apps because they preferred direct and in-person services and interactions [22,45]. However, 5 studies reported that patients are more likely to use DSM apps if recommended by HCPs [26,30,38,41,49], other patients, or the media [49].

Other barriers to the use of DSM apps relate to patients’ experiences with the apps. Patients are less likely to use DSM apps if data entry is onerous [26,32,36,37,43,48] or patients could not integrate the app with daily activities, creating time constraints [26,32,36,43,44]. Patients are less likely to use DSM apps if they are not aware of their existence [26,36,38,39,47]. Table 2 presents the perceptions and experiences that affect patients’ use of DSM apps.

Table 2. Patients’ perceptions and experiences (N=3027).
Themes, factors, and definitionsSample size (participants), n (%)Study typeReference
Patients’ perceptions

No perceived benefit: patients are confident without using apps and do not perceive and are uncertain of the benefits of the app in DSMa


16 (0.53)Qualitative[32]


30 (0.99)Qualitative[38]


9 (0.3)Qualitative[36]


11 (0.36)Qualitative[34]


16 (0.53)Qualitative[43]


18 (0.6)Qualitative[26]


24 (0.79)Qualitative[48]


189 (6.24)Cross-sectional[47]


163 (5.38)Cross-sectional[27]


796 (26.3)Cross-sectional[39]

Taking charge and accountability: patients worry that apps put them in full control of their diabetes and make them accountable for their behavior


12 (0.4)Qualitative[45]


18 (0.6)Qualitative[26]

Direct contact: patients prefer in-person services


12 (0.4)Qualitative[45]


60 (1.98)Cross-sectional[22]

Recommendation


Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if recommended by HCPsb



30 (0.99)Qualitative[38]



18 (0.6)Qualitative[26]



8 (0.26)Qualitative[30]



355 (11.73)Cross-sectional[41]



1276 (42.15)Cross-sectional[49]


Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if recommended by other patients1276 (42.15)Cross-sectional[49]


Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if recommended by media1276 (42.15)Cross-sectional[49]

Lack of awareness of existing apps: patients do not know of existing DSM apps


30 (0.99)Qualitative[38]


9 (0.3)Qualitative[36]


18 (0.6)Qualitative[26]


189 (6.24)Cross-sectional[47]


796 (26.3)Cross-sectional[39]
Patients’ experiences

Data entry: patients find data entry burdensome


16 (0.53)Qualitative[45]


9 (0.3)Qualitative[36]


15 (0.5)Qualitative[37]


18 (0.6)Qualitative[26]


16 (0.53)Qualitative[43]


24 (0.79)Qualitative[48]


355 (11.73)Cross-sectional[41]

Time constraint: patients could not integrate the app with daily activities


29 (0.96)Qualitative[44]


16 (0.53)Qualitative[32]


9 (0.3)Qualitative[36]


18 (0.6)Qualitative[26]

aDSM: diabetes self-management.

bHCP: health care professional.

The Desired App Characteristics

Other factors that affect patients’ use of DSM apps relate to the functions and features of these apps. The studies included in this review either evaluated DSM apps with specific functions or reported on patients’ preferred app functions and features that would encourage them to adopt the DSM app and integrate it into their self-management routines. The functions and features are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

Functions related to nutrition and diet have been reported in 73% (19/26) of studies (tracking diet, calorie counting, and healthy meal recipes) [22,26,27,29,32-35,37-39,41-44,46-49], followed by blood glucose monitoring functions (diaries and reminders to check blood glucose levels) reported in 58% (15/26) of studies [22,26,29,32,33,35,38,39,41,43,46-49], and physical activity functions (tracking, pedometer functions, and reminders to exercise) reported in 54% (14/26) studies [22,27,29,34,35,37-39,41,42,44,46,48,49].

Patients also prefer DSM apps to include medicine management functions such as insulin calculators, tracking medications, and medication reminders, as reported in 13 studies [22,29-31,35,37,38,41,43,44,46,47,49]. Weight management functions were reported in 11 studies [22,27,29,35,37-39,41-43,46], followed by mental health functions in 7 studies, including stress management and emotional support [27,32,37,39,42,44,46]. Appointment reminder preferences were reported in 4 studies [31,38,46,47], and sleep pattern functions were reported in 2 studies [29,42].

Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they facilitate communication with HCPs (12/26, 46%) [26,30,31,33,34,36,38,41,43,44,48,49] and patients (7/26, 27%) [28,31,35-37,44,49], are visually appealing (10/26, 39%) [26,32,35-38,43,44,46,48], are easy to use (8/26, 31%) [26,30,34,37,38,41,48,49], are easy to understand (1/26, 4%) [43] and easy to access (1/26, 4%) [48], ensure privacy and security (7/26, 27%) [25,30,35,36,41,43,46], provide instant feedback (5/26, 19%) [32,34,37,42,48] and personalized information (2/26, 8%) [26,44], enable goal setting (4/26, 15%) [26,37,42,46], are not costly (5/26, 19%) [24,38,43,48,49], and are available in the patients’ native language (1/26, 4%) [46]. In addition, patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they provide relevant information about diabetes, latest research, and trends (8/26, 31%) [26,31,36-38,43,46,48], increase access to patients’ medical history and notes (3/26, 12%) [22,31,47], and provide information on how to detect and manage hypoglycemia (2/26, 8%) [39,46]. Patients are less likely to use DSM apps if they experience technical problems that cause frequent app crashes (4/26, 15%) [35,38,43,44].

Table 3. The desired diabetes self-management apps’ functions (N=21).
App functionStudies, n (%)References
Nutrition and diet; for example, carbohydrates counting, diet plans, and reference of nutritional values on dishes in restaurants19 (90.5)[22,26,27,29,32-35,37-39,41-44,46-49]
Blood glucose monitoring; for example, diabetes diary, blood sugar test reminder, and monitoring hypoglycemia symptoms15 (71.43)[22,26,29,32,33,35,38,39,41,43,46-49]
Physical activity; for example, tracking physical activity and exercise plan14 (66.67)[22,27,29,34,35,37-39,41,42,44,46,48,49]
Medicines management; for example, insulin dose calculator and medication reminders13 (61.9)[22,29-31,35,37,38,41,43,44,46,47,49]
Weight management; for example, tracking weight and weight loss plans11 (52.38)[22,27,29,35,37-39,41-43,46]
Mental health; for example, monitoring mood and well-being and social support7 (33.33)[27,32,37,39,42,44,46]
Appointments reminders4 (19.05)[31,38,46,47]
Sleep pattern2 (9.53)[29,42]
Table 4. The desired diabetes self-management (DSM) apps’ features (N=5524).
Theme (apps’ features): factors and definitionsSample size (participants) n (%)Study typeReference
Ease of use

Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they are easy to use


15 (0.27)Qualitative[37]


30 (0.54)Qualitative[38]


18 (0.33)Qualitative[26]


11 (0.2)Qualitative[34]


8 (0.15)Qualitative[30]


24 (0.43)Qualitative[48]


355 (6.43)Cross-sectional[41]


1276 (23.1)Cross-sectional[49]

Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they are easy to understand16 (0.29)Qualitative[43]

Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they are easy to access24 (0.43)Qualitative[48]
Communication

Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they enable communication with HCPsa


29 (0.52)Qualitative[44]


30 (0.54)Qualitative[38]


9 (0.16)Qualitative[36]


18 (0.33)Qualitative[26]


11 (0.2)Qualitative[34]


16 (0.29)Qualitative[43]


8 (0.15)Qualitative[30]


24 (0.43)Qualitative[48]


53 (0.96)Qualitative[31]


44 (0.8)Cross-sectional[33]


355 (6.43)Cross-sectional[41]


1276 (23.1)Cross-sectional[49]

Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they enable communication and knowledge sharing with other patients


29 (0.52)Qualitative[44]


15 (0.27)Qualitative[37]


9 (0.16)Qualitative[36]


31 (0.56)Qualitative[28]


53 (0.96)Qualitative[31]


233 (4.22)Cross-sectional[35]


1276 (23.1)Cross-sectional[49]

Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they have a social media component


31 (0.56)Qualitative[28]


8 (0.15)Qualitative[30]


233 (4.22)Cross-sectional[35]
Feedback: patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they get real-time feedback

16 (0.29)Qualitative[32]

15 (0.27)Qualitative[37]

11 (0.2)Qualitative[34]

24 (0.43)Qualitative[48]

1500 (27.15)Cross-sectional[42]
Customization: patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they provide personalized or tailored information

29 (0.52)Qualitative[44]

18 (0.33)Qualitative[26]
Presentation

Patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they include visual aids or visual effects


29 (0.52)Qualitative[44]


16 (0.29)Qualitative[32]


30 (0.54)Qualitative[38]


21 (0.38)Qualitative[46]


9 (0.16)Qualitative[36]


15 (0.27)Qualitative[37]


18 (0.33)Qualitative[26]


16 (0.29)Qualitative[43]


24 (0.43)Qualitative[48]


233 (4.22)Cross-sectional[35]

Patients prefer a clear layout of apps and a suitable font size30 (0.54)Qualitative[38]
Goal setting: patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they set up goals

21 (0.38)Qualitative[46]

15 (0.27)Qualitative[37]

18 (0.33)Qualitative[26]

1500 (27.15)Cross-sectional[42]
Privacy and security: patients are more likely to use DSM apps if they ensure data privacy and security

21 (0.38)Qualitative[46]

9 (0.16)Qualitative[36]

287 (5.2)Qualitative[25]

16 (0.29)Qualitative[43]

8 (0.15)Qualitative[30]

233 (4.22)Cross-sectional[35]

355 (6.43)Cross-sectional[41]
Cost: patients consider the cost of apps when deciding to use DSM apps

503 (9.11)Cohort[24]

30 (0.54)Qualitative[38]

16 (0.29)Qualitative[43]

24 (0.43)Qualitative[48]

1276 (23.1)Cross-sectional[49]
Technical problems: patients are less likely to use DSM apps if they experience technical problems or app crashes

29 (0.52)Qualitative[44]

30 (0.54)Qualitative[38]

16 (0.29)Qualitative[43]

233 (4.22)Cross-sectional[35]
Language: patients are more likely to use apps if they are in their native language in addition to English21 (0.38)Qualitative[46]
Information

Information about diabetes and the latest research findings


30 (0.54)Qualitative[38]


21 (0.38)Qualitative[46]


9 (0.16)Qualitative[36]


15 (0.27)Qualitative[37]


18 (0.33)Qualitative[26]


16 (0.29)Qualitative[43]


24 (0.43)Qualitative[48]


53 (0.96)Qualitative[31]

Patient information, medical history, and medical notes


53 (0.96)Qualitative[31]


189 (3.42)Cross-sectional[47]


60 (1.09)Cross-sectional[22]

Information about symptoms of hypoglycemia and its management


21 (0.38)Qualitative[46]


796 (14.41)Cross-sectional[39]

aHCP: health care professional.

Factors Affecting HCPs’ Recommendation of DSM Apps

Only a small number of studies involved HCPs [23,28,30,40,44,47,49], despite their role in promoting and facilitating DSM. Table 5 presents the relevant findings.

Some factors identified by patients as determinants of DSM app adoption have also been reported by HCPs. These include patients’ characteristics, beliefs, and experiences. HCPs reported that patients who find it difficult to use or access technology are less likely to use DSM apps, and HCPs will be reluctant to recommend DSM apps to those patients [23,30,44]. Furthermore, HCPs are more likely to recommend DSM apps if they are easy to use [23,30], easy to access [23], provide prompt real-time feedback [30], improve communication between patients and HCPs [49], are free of charge [23,49], and are available in the patients’ language [23]. HCPs also reported in the study by Zhang et al [49] that patients do not trust diabetes apps, and hence, will not be using them and that patients are less likely to use DSM apps if they require onerous and time-consuming data entry tasks.

Similar to patients’ reports, HCPs would recommend DSM apps if they provide information about diabetes and the latest research findings [30]. Other similar factors include the desired functions, features, and information of the apps. Similar to patients, HCPs would recommend DSM apps if they include nutrition and diet functions [23,47], blood glucose monitoring [23,49], physical activity tracking [23], medicines’ management [47], and weight management [23].

HCPs characteristics, beliefs, and awareness of existing DSM apps also affect their recommendation to patients. A study reported that HCPs aged between 40 and 49 years are most likely to recommend DSM apps, and awareness of diabetes apps increases with the HCP’s age [49]. Moreover, HCPs with Master of Science degrees, those registered as dietitian nutritionists [23], and those working in tertiary care settings [49] are more likely to recommend apps to patients. HCPs who routinely use apps are more likely to recommend apps to their patients. Those who are not technology savvy are likely to require training sessions on how to use apps before recommending them [23]. Zhang et al [49] suggested that HCPs are not convinced of the impact of DSM apps on blood glucose levels; therefore, they may be reluctant to recommend them. Furthermore, HCPs’ lack of awareness of existing or appropriate DSM apps hinders their recommendations to patients [23,49].

Other factors that may hinder HCPs’ recommendation of app use are related to work pressure. A total of 3 studies highlighted that the heavy workload of HCPs would prevent them from recommending apps, given that they lack the time needed to train patients on how to use the app [23,30,44,49]. HCPs reported in the study by Zhang et al [49] that they may not recommend diabetes apps to patients, as it is not clear if it is legal to provide diabetes care through apps and how to bill the patient for this internet-based care.

Table 5. Summary of the factors affecting health care professionals’ (HCPs) recommendations of diabetes self-management (DSM) apps (N=1297).
Themes, factors, and definitionsSample size (participants), n (%)Study typeReference
Patients’ characteristics—technology use: HCPs report that patients who face difficulties in using or accessing to technology are less likely to use DSM apps and less likely to recommend apps for them

5 (0.39)Qualitative[44]

6 (0.46)Qualitative[30]

583 (44.95)Cross-sectional[23]
Patients’ beliefs—patients’ distrust: HCPs reported that the main obstacle to use apps is patients’ distrust of the apps608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]
Patients’ experiences

Data entry: HCPs report that the patients may find data entry burdensome6 (0.46)Qualitative[30]

Time constraint: HCPs report that using apps could be time consuming for patients583 (44.95)Cross-sectional[23]
HCPs characteristics

Age: HCPs awareness about apps increases with age; HCPs aged between 40 and 49 years are more likely to recommend apps for patients608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]

Educational levels: HCPs with masters’ degree and registered dietician nutritionists are more likely to recommend apps for patients583 (44.95)Cross-sectional[23]

Clinical settings: HCPs in tertiary care are more likely to recommend and use DSM apps for patients608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]

Technology use: HCPs who are not technology savvy require more training about apps


5 (0.39)Qualitative[44]


583 (44.95)Cross-sectional[23]
HCPs beliefs—no perceived benefits: HCPs are less likely to recommend apps because of the lack of evidence about their effectiveness608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]
HCPs awareness—lack of awareness

HCPs do not know of the existing apps


95 (7.32)Cross-sectional[36]


608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]

HCPs do not know about the suitable apps to recommend608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]
Work pressures

Legal issues: HCPs are less likely to recommend apps for managing diabetes because they do not know if it is legal to use apps to manage patients608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]

Workload: workload and workflow challenges are the main barriers to recommend DSM apps


5 (0.39)Qualitative[44]


6 (0.46)Qualitative[30]


608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]

Billing issues: uncertainty on how to bill the patients about health care provided through the apps608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]
Apps features

Ease of use


HCPs are more likely to recommend DSM apps to patients if they are easy to use



6 (0.46)Qualitative[30]



583 (44.95)Cross-sectional[23]


HCPs are more likely to recommend DSM apps to patients if it they are easy to access583 (44.95)Cross-sectional[23]

Feedback: HCPs are more likely to recommend DSM apps to patients if they provide real-time feedback6 (0.46)Qualitative[30]

Communication: HCPs are more likely to recommend DSM apps to patients if they improve communication with HCPs608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]

Cost: HCPs are more likely to recommend DSM apps to patients if apps are free of charge


583 (44.95)Cross-sectional[23]


608 (46.88)Cross-sectional[49]

Multi-language: HCPs are less likely to recommend DSM apps for patients if apps are not available in the patients’ language583 (44.95)Cross-sectional[23]
Apps’ information provision: HCPs would like the apps to have information about diabetes and new research findings6 (0.46)Qualitative[30]

Principal Findings

This study systematically reviewed the determinants of DSM app use by patients and their recommendations by HCPs, highlighting their prevalence and significance in facilitating and hindering their uptake. To our knowledge, this is the first review exploring the prevalence and determinants of use by patients with T2DM and HCPs’ recommendations of mobile apps for DSM.

Patients’ sociodemographic characteristics are determinants of app use in DSM. Age has been consistently reported to be a key influencing factor. Younger [56-59], female [60,61] patients were more likely to use DSM apps. Older patients are less likely to engage in digital technologies and health apps [62]. However, the current COVID-19 pandemic highlights that, when necessary, older patients can effectively interact with mobile apps that are beneficial and meet their needs, such as social networking apps and digital health apps [63]. Older patients are an important population to target to improve DSM behaviors [64], given the high prevalence of this condition among this group. Notably, the literature often focuses on biological age as a factor and the assumed decline in cognitive function, sight, hearing, and motor skills over time. However, when considering technology adoption, the concept of age should be expanded to incorporate the technological age of patients; people who are aged 60 years in 2020 have had at least 20 years of familiarity or experience with digital technology [65].

Patients’ use of DSM apps is also influenced by their level of education, eHealth literacy, perceptions and digital experiences, and technical skills [56,66-71]. Interestingly, the duration of diagnosis also affected the use of DSM apps. Newly diagnosed patients are more likely to use DSM apps, as shown in the qualitative study by Baptista et al [71]. The authors further clarified that patients may become frustrated with the basic content of the apps as they become more experienced with diabetes management.

Direct recommendations by health professionals have been suggested as a significant influencer of patients’ use of DSM apps [72]. However, only a few studies have explored diabetes HCPs’ recommendation of DSM apps and their integration into care pathways. Clinicians are still apprehensive about recommending DSM apps, especially that consensus regarding the strength of their evidence base and evaluation methods is yet to be reached [73].

Several determinants related to DSM apps reported in our review were also postulated as constructs of the main adoption theories; for example, diffusion of innovation theory [74], technology acceptance model [75], and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology [76]. These include the relative advantages of apps in DSM, compatibility with daily schedules, and ease of use.

It was found that patients with type 2 diabetes prefer interactive apps with functions that aid them in maintaining a healthy lifestyle, reducing weight, and managing their medicines. Privacy, security, and costs also affect use. These are in line with the findings of the review by Adu et al [77] for developing diabetes apps and the review of diabetes-related applications by Doyle-Delgado and Chamberlain [78], as well as the reviews for other health conditions such as hypertension [79], gestational diabetes [80], and chronic conditions [81]. Interestingly, mental health functions were desired to be part of diabetes apps rather than separate or generic apps, which highlights the importance patients assign to integrated mental and diabetes health care.

Studies exploring HCPs’ use and recommendations of DSM apps are scarce. Our review identified similar factors affecting HCPs’ recommendations of DSM to their patients. HCPs are a diverse group of technology users, and their own characteristics and experiences with mobile apps affect their likelihood of recommending these apps [82]. This highlights the need to integrate digital health education into health care curricula [82]. Furthermore, workload pressures [19,66,67] have also been reported to hinder HCPs’ recommendation of apps, especially if time is required to train patients. It is important to consider that because of the lack of regulatory frameworks, digital health clinical guidelines, institutional review, and validation of available apps, HCPs are likely to hesitate to recommend them [13,83].

Future Research

Looking forward, there are a few issues to consider, especially that digital health apps are likely to be one of the legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic, disrupting traditional health care delivery models [84]. First, researchers have investigated the role and effectiveness of these apps as stand-alone or complementary resources. Efforts should be dedicated to investigate how DSM apps can be integrated into care pathways [83,85], and to explore the roles and responsibilities of health care organizations, HCPs, and patients in a system where DSM apps put the patient in the driver seat of managing their condition, the HCP holding the map and providing feedback and monitoring, and health care organizations ensuring road safety and clinical governance. Furthermore, it is important to explore the impact of ethnicity and race on engagement with and access to diabetes care when mHealth apps and technologies are integrated into care pathways. Mobile apps and technologies may improve access but may also exacerbate inequalities [56]. Answering this question is paramount for designing effective, efficient, and equitable services. It is also important to fully investigate the impact of health care delivery, via mobile apps, on clinical and patient outcomes and how reimbursement and remuneration can be claimed [86].

Second, several ethical issues must be explored when integrating health technologies such as mobile apps into care pathways. One of the most frequently reported barriers to mobile app adoption in health care is the fear of losing human interaction between the patient and the HCP, but at the same time, patients and HCPs see the potential for mobile apps to increase their contact and meaningful input, albeit internet-based. Research could explore how mobile apps can be integrated into care pathways without dehumanizing patients or HCPs [87]. This may warrant investigating how to affect cultural change, especially in relation to the management of long-term conditions and where health technologies fit in the new normal. Privacy is another issue that is often reported when digital technologies are used to deliver health care services. Research could explore the required legal changes, depending on culture and context, to facilitate a safe transfer of information between patients, health care organizations, and relevant stakeholders (and who those stakeholders might be) [88].

Third, regulatory, clinical, and professional bodies’ evaluation and support of apps is a key facilitator to encourage health care organizations and HCPs to recommend apps for patient care and for patients to engage with the recommended apps [13]. Research could develop evaluation and implementation frameworks and inform the development of clinical and care guidelines that integrate mobile apps into disease management pathways.

Study Strengths and Limitations

This is the first systematic review to present a synthesis of the determinants that affect patients’ use of DSM apps and HCPs recommending them. It also highlights the features and functions required for DSM apps. It draws from a range of studies with qualitative and quantitative designs to improve our understanding of the significance of these factors when deciding to use or recommend a DSM app. However, several potential limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First, we included only studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and some of which were of poor quality. Further insights may be reported in conference proceedings and gray literature resources, which were excluded from this study. Second, we included studies that reported on the use of DSM apps in type 2 diabetes, even if those studies reported other types of diabetes or other long-term conditions. This meant that, occasionally, it was not possible to separate data relating to type 2 diabetes from data relating to type 1 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other comorbidities. Third, considering the factors reported in this review were not always explicitly highlighted in the included studies, our identification, interpretation, and coding techniques may have affected the review findings. Finally, several of the reported factors are based on what would influence patients and HCPs’ hypothetical adoption of DSM apps rather than actual use. Therefore, hypothetical bias must be considered when interpreting the findings of our review.

Conclusions

DSM is paramount for improving diabetes outcomes and reducing the risk of complications. Mobile apps can facilitate self-management activities if patients use them and HCPs recommend them. Addressing the technology, patient, and HCP factors that may hinder the use of DSM apps can improve their role in diabetes care, especially if these apps are integrated into diabetes care pathways.

Authors' Contributions

HA and IB conceptualized the study. HA, IB, and ZA designed the methodology. HA, AAH, and IB performed data collection, and the data were validated by HA and IB. Formal analysis was performed by HA and IB, and investigation, by SA and IB. The original draft was written by HA, IB, and ZA and was reviewed and edited by HA, IB, ZA, AAH, and DA. Visualization was performed by HA and IB. The study was supervised by IB, ZA, and DA, and HA and IB were involved in project administration. Funding acquisition was done by HA. All the authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research is a part of PhD studentship of HA. The PhD studentship of HA is funded by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Health (Kuwait).

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

PubMed search strategy and the results of the quality assessment of the included studies.

DOCX File , 104 KB

Multimedia Appendix 2

Summary and characteristics of the included studies.

DOCX File , 41 KB

  1. IDF Diabetes Atlas. International Diabetes Federation. 2019.   URL: https://diabetesatlas.org/upload/resources/material/20200302_133351_IDFATLAS9e-final-web.pdf [accessed 2020-04-06]
  2. Wou C, Unwin N, Huang Y, Roglic G. Implications of the growing burden of diabetes for premature cardiovascular disease mortality and the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goal target 3.4. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2019 Apr;9(2):140-149 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Nichols G, Ustyugova A, Deruaz-Luyet A, Brodovicz K. 16-OR: contributions of chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease to medical costs of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2019;68(Supplement_1) [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
  4. 15-minute minimum consultations, continuity of care through 'micro-teams', and an end to isolated working: this is the future of general practice. Royal College of General Practitioners.   URL: https:/​/www.​rcgp.org.uk/​about-us/​news/​2019/​may/​15-minute-minimum-consultations-continuity-of-care.​aspx [accessed 2020-06-14]
  5. Lee A, Piette J, Heisler M, Janevic M, Rosland AM. Diabetes self-management and glycemic control: the role of autonomy support from informal health supporters. Health Psychol 2019 Feb;38(2):122-132 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Funnell MM, Anderson RM. The problem with compliance in diabetes. JAMA 2000 Oct 04;284(13):1709. [CrossRef]
  7. Self care. Royal College of Nursing.   URL: https://www.rcn.org.uk/clinical-topics/public-health/self-care [accessed 2020-03-03]
  8. Shrivastava SR, Shrivastava PS, Ramasamy J. Role of self-care in management of diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2013 Mar 05;12(1):14 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Papatheodorou K, Banach M, Bekiari E, Rizzo M, Edmonds M. Complications of diabetes 2017. J Diabetes Res 2018;2018:3086167-3086164 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Lin X, Xu Y, Pan X, Xu J, Ding Y, Sun X, et al. Global, regional, and national burden and trend of diabetes in 195 countries and territories: an analysis from 1990 to 2025. Sci Rep 2020 Sep 08;10(1):14790 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Powers M, Bardsley J, Cypress M, Duker P, Funnell MM, Fischl AH, et al. Diabetes self-management education and support in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2017 Feb;43(1):40-53 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Greenwood DA, Gee PM, Fatkin KJ, Peeples M. A systematic review of reviews evaluating technology-enabled diabetes self-management education and support. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017 Sep;11(5):1015-1027. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Fleming G, Petrie J, Bergenstal R, Holl R, Peters A, Heinemann L. Diabetes digital app technology: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A consensus report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) diabetes technology working group. Diabetes Care 2020 Jan;43(1):250-260 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Basilico A, Marceglia S, Bonacina S, Pinciroli F. Advising patients on selecting trustful apps for diabetes self-care. Comput Biol Med 2016 Apr 01;71:86-96. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Beck J, Greenwood D, Blanton L, Bollinger ST, Butcher MK, Condon JE, et al. 2017 national standards for diabetes self-management education and support. Diabetes Educ 2017 Jul 28;43(5):449-464 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu Y, Yao X, Vespasiani G, Nicolucci A, Dong Y, Kwong J, et al. Mobile app-based interventions to support diabetes self-management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to identify functions associated with glycemic efficacy. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Mar 14;5(3):e35 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Fatehi F, Gray LC, Russell AW. Mobile health (mHealth) for diabetes care: opportunities and challenges. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017 Jan;19(1):1-3. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Zhang Y, Liu C, Luo S, Xie Y, Liu F, Li X, et al. Factors influencing patients' intentions to use diabetes management apps based on an extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model: web-based survey. J Med Internet Res 2019 Aug 13;21(8):e15023 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Gagnon M, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 Jan;23(1):212-220 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Maniam A, Dhillon J, Baghaei N. Determinants of patients' intention to adopt diabetes self-management applications. In: Proceedings of the 15th New Zealand Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 2015 Presented at: CHINZ 2015: 15th New Zealand Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Sep 3 - 4, 2015; Hamilton New Zealand   URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2808047.2808059 [CrossRef]
  21. Byambasuren O, Beller E, Glasziou P. Current knowledge and adoption of mobile health apps among Australian general practitioners: survey study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 Jun 03;7(6):e13199 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Humble JR, Tolley EA, Krukowski RA, Womack CR, Motley TS, Bailey JE. Use of and interest in mobile health for diabetes self-care in vulnerable populations. J Telemed Telecare 2016 Jan;22(1):32-38. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Karduck J, Chapman-Novakofski K. Results of the clinician apps survey, how clinicians working with patients with diabetes and obesity use mobile health apps. J Nutr Educ Behav 2018 Jan;50(1):62-9.e1 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. North F, Chaudhry R. Apple HealthKit and health app: patient uptake and barriers in primary care. Telemed J E Health 2016 Jul;22(7):608-613. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Ofili EO, Pemu PE, Quarshie A, Mensah EA, Rollins L, Ojutalayo F, et al. Democratizing discovery health with N=Me. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2018;129:215-234. [Medline]
  26. Peng W, Yuan S, Holtz B. Exploring the challenges and opportunities of health mobile apps for individuals with type 2 diabetes living in rural communities. Telemed J E Health 2016 Sep;22(9):733-738 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. Robbins R, Krebs P, Jagannathan R, Jean-Louis G, Duncan DT. Health app use among US mobile phone users: analysis of trends by chronic disease status. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Dec 19;5(12):e197 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Surkan PJ, Mezzanotte KS, Sena LM, Chang LW, Gittelsohn J, Trolle Lagerros Y, et al. Community-driven priorities in smartphone application development: leveraging social networks to self-manage type 2 diabetes in a low-income African American neighborhood. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019 Jul 30;16(15):2715 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Tanenbaum ML, Bhatt HB, Thomas VA, Wing RR. Use of self-monitoring tools in a clinic sample of adults with type 2 diabetes. Transl Behav Med 2017 Jun;7(2):358-363. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Thies K, Anderson D, Cramer B. Lack of adoption of a mobile app to support patient self-management of diabetes and hypertension in a federally qualified health center: interview analysis of staff and patients in a failed randomized trial. JMIR Hum Factors 2017 Oct 03;4(4):e24 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Zulman DM, Jenchura EC, Cohen DM, Lewis ET, Houston TK, Asch SM. How can ehealth technology address challenges related to multimorbidity? Perspectives from patients with multiple chronic conditions. J Gen Intern Med 2015 Aug;30(8):1063-1070. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Desveaux L, Shaw J, Saragosa M, Soobiah C, Marani H, Hensel J, et al. A mobile app to improve self-management of individuals with type 2 diabetes: qualitative realist evaluation. J Med Internet Res 2018 Mar 16;20(3):e81 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Dobson KG, Hall P. A pilot study examining patient attitudes and intentions to adopt assistive technologies into type 2 diabetes self-management. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015 Mar;9(2):309-315. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Pludwinski S, Ahmad F, Wayne N, Ritvo P. Participant experiences in a smartphone-based health coaching intervention for type 2 diabetes: a qualitative inquiry. J Telemed Telecare 2016 Apr 21;22(3):172-178. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  35. Conway N, Campbell I, Forbes P, Cunningham S, Wake D. mHealth applications for diabetes: user preference and implications for app development. Health Informatics J 2016 Dec;22(4):1111-1120 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Kayyali R, Peletidi A, Ismail M, Hashim Z, Bandeira P, Bonnah J. Awareness and use of mHealth apps: a study from England. Pharmacy (Basel) 2017 Jun 14;5(2):A [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. Kelly L, Jenkinson C, Morley D. Experiences of using web-based and mobile technologies to support self-management of type 2 diabetes: qualitative study. JMIR Diabetes 2018 May 11;3(2):e9 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Jeffrey B, Bagala M, Creighton A, Leavey T, Nicholls S, Wood C, et al. Mobile phone applications and their use in the self-management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a qualitative study among app users and non-app users. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2019;11:84 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Trawley S, Baptista S, Browne JL, Pouwer F, Speight J. The use of mobile applications among adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: results from the second miles-Australia (miles-2) study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017 Dec;19(12):730-738. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Alanzi T. mHealth for diabetes self-management in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: barriers and solutions. J Multidiscip Healthc 2018;11:535-546 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Rafiullah M, David SK. Health apps usage and preferences among Saudi patients with diabetes: a survey. Int J Clin Pract 2019 May 17;73(5):e13345. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Ernsting C, Stühmann LM, Dombrowski SU, Voigt-Antons J, Kuhlmey A, Gellert P. Associations of health app use and perceived effectiveness in people with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: population-based survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 Mar 28;7(3):e12179 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Scheibe M, Reichelt J, Bellmann M, Kirch W. Acceptance factors of mobile apps for diabetes by patients aged 50 or older: a qualitative study. Med 2 0 2015 Mar 02;4(1):e1 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. Brandt LR, Hidalgo L, Diez-Canseco F, Araya R, Mohr DC, Menezes PR, et al. Addressing depression comorbid with diabetes or hypertension in resource-poor settings: a qualitative study about user perception of a nurse-supported smartphone app in Peru. JMIR Ment Health 2019 Jun 18;6(6):e11701 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  45. Mathiesen AS, Thomsen T, Jensen T, Schiøtz C, Langberg H, Egerod I. The influence of diabetes distress on digital interventions for diabetes management in vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study of patient perspectives. J Clin Transl Endocrinol 2017 Sep;9:41-47 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  46. Kabeza CB, Harst L, Schwarz PE, Timpel P. Assessment of Rwandan diabetic patients’ needs and expectations to develop their first diabetes self-management smartphone application (Kir’App). Therapeutic Advances Endocrinol 2019 Apr 26;10:204201881984531. [CrossRef]
  47. Boyle L, Grainger R, Hall RM, Krebs JD. Use of and beliefs about mobile phone apps for diabetes self-management: surveys of people in a hospital diabetes clinic and diabetes health professionals in New Zealand. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Jun 30;5(6):e85 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Torbjørnsen A, Ribu L, Rønnevig M, Grøttland A, Helseth S. Users' acceptability of a mobile application for persons with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2019 Sep 06;19(1):641 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Zhang Y, Li X, Luo S, Liu C, Xie Y, Guo J, et al. Use, perspectives, and attitudes regarding diabetes management mobile apps among diabetes patients and diabetologists in China: national web-based survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 Feb 08;7(2):e12658 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Fixsen D, Naoom S, Blase K, Friedman R, Wallace F. Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network; 2005.
  51. Understanding mobile apps. Federal Trade Commission.   URL: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0018-understanding-mobile-apps [accessed 2020-03-26]
  52. CASP checklist. CASP.   URL: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ [accessed 2022-07-03]
  53. Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide, South Australia: JBI; 2020.
  54. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008 Jul 10;8:45 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev 2017 Mar 23;6(1):61 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  56. Bol N, Helberger N, Weert JC. Differences in mobile health app use: a source of new digital inequalities? Inf Soc 2018 Apr 26;34(3):183-193. [CrossRef]
  57. Shen C, Wang MP, Chu JT, Wan A, Viswanath K, Chan SS, et al. Health app possession among smartphone or tablet owners in Hong Kong: population-based survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 Jun 05;5(6):e77 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  58. Gardner M, Jenkins S, O'Neil D, Wood D, Spurrier B, Pruthi S. Perceptions of video-based appointments from the patient's home: a patient survey. Telemed J E Health 2015 Apr;21(4):281-285 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Nymberg V, Bolmsjö BB, Wolff M, Calling S, Gerward S, Sandberg M. 'Having to learn this so late in our lives…' Swedish elderly patients' beliefs, experiences, attitudes and expectations of e-health in primary health care. Scand J Prim Health Care 2019 Mar;37(1):41-52 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. Lupton D, Maslen S. How women use digital technologies for health: qualitative interview and focus group study. J Med Internet Res 2019 Jan 25;21(1):e11481 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  61. Bidmon S, Terlutter R. Gender differences in searching for health information on the internet and the virtual patient-physician relationship in Germany: exploratory results on how men and women differ and why. J Med Internet Res 2015 Jun 22;17(6):e156 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  62. Isaković M, Sedlar U, Volk M, Bešter J. Usability pitfalls of diabetes mHealth apps for the elderly. J Diabetes Res 2016;2016:1604609 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  63. Banskota S, Healy M, Goldberg E. 15 smartphone apps for older adults to use while in isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. West J Emerg Med 2020 Apr 14;21(3):514-525. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  64. Paiva JO, Andrade RM, de Oliveira PA, Duarte P, Santos IS, Evangelista AL, et al. Mobile applications for elderly healthcare: a systematic mapping. PLoS One 2020 Jul 30;15(7):e0236091 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  65. Harris M, Cox K, Musgrove C, Ernstberger K. Consumer preferences for banking technologies by age groups. Int J Bank Market 2016;34(4):587-602 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
  66. O'Connor S, Hanlon P, O'Donnell CA, Garcia S, Glanville J, Mair F. Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016 Sep 15;16(1):120 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  67. Alvarado MM, Kum H, Gonzalez Coronado K, Foster MJ, Ortega P, Lawley MA. Barriers to remote health interventions for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and proposed classification scheme. J Med Internet Res 2017 Feb 13;19(2):e28 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  68. Kampmeijer R, Pavlova M, Tambor M, Golinowska S, Groot W. The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res 2016 Sep 05;16 Suppl 5(S5):290 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  69. Hahn RA, Truman BI. Education improves public health and promotes health equity. Int J Health Serv 2015;45(4):657-678. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  70. Guo SH, Hsing H, Lin J, Lee C. Relationships between mobile eHealth literacy, diabetes self-care, and glycemic outcomes in Taiwanese patients with type 2 diabetes: cross-sectional study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021 Feb 05;9(2):e18404 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  71. Baptista S, Wadley G, Bird D, Oldenburg B, Speight J, My Diabetes Coach Research Group. User experiences with a type 2 diabetes coaching app: qualitative study. JMIR Diabetes 2020 Jul 17;5(3):e16692 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  72. Rossmann C, Riesmeyer C, Brew-Sam N, Karnowski V, Joeckel S, Chib A, et al. Appropriation of mobile health for diabetes self-management: lessons from two qualitative studies. JMIR Diabetes 2019 Mar 29;4(1):e10271 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  73. The Transformative Power of Mobile Medicine Leveraging Innovation, Seizing Opportunities and Overcoming Obstacles of MHealth. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science; 2019.
  74. Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. New York: Free Press; 2003.
  75. Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Machine Stud 1993 Mar;38(3):475-487. [CrossRef]
  76. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 2000 Feb;46(2):186-204. [CrossRef]
  77. Adu MD, Malabu UH, Malau-Aduli AE, Malau-Aduli BS. Users' preferences and design recommendations to promote engagements with mobile apps for diabetes self-management: multi-national perspectives. PLoS One 2018 Dec 10;13(12):e0208942 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  78. Doyle-Delgado KJ, Chamberlain JJ. Use of diabetes-related applications and digital health tools by people with diabetes and their health care providers. Clin Diabetes 2020 Dec;38(5):449-461 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  79. Alessa T, Abdi S, Hawley MS, de Witte L. Mobile apps to support the self-management of hypertension: systematic review of effectiveness, usability, and user satisfaction. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018 Jul 23;6(7):e10723 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  80. Chen J, Gemming L, Hanning R, Allman-Farinelli M. Smartphone apps and the nutrition care process: current perspectives and future considerations. Patient Educ Couns 2018 Apr;101(4):750-757. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  81. Birkhoff SD, Smeltzer SC. Perceptions of smartphone user-centered mobile health tracking apps across various chronic illness populations: an integrative review. J Nurs Scholarsh 2017 Jul;49(4):371-378. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  82. Machleid F, Kaczmarczyk R, Johann D, Balčiūnas J, Atienza-Carbonell B, von Maltzahn F, et al. Perceptions of digital health education among European medical students: mixed methods survey. J Med Internet Res 2020 Aug 14;22(8):e19827 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  83. Gordon W, Landman A, Zhang H, Bates DW. Beyond validation: getting health apps into clinical practice. NPJ Digit Med 2020;3:14 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  84. Securing a positive health care technology legacy from COVID-19. The Health Foundation.   URL: https:/​/www.​health.org.uk/​publications/​long-reads/​securing-a-positive-health-care-technology-legacy-from-covid-19 [accessed 2021-06-10]
  85. Ramdani B, Duan B, Berrou I. Exploring the determinants of mobile health adoption by hospitals in China: empirical study. JMIR Med Inform 2020 Jul 14;8(7):e14795 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  86. Esser M, Boreham A, Ring C, Schreier J. PNS100 The New Reimbursement Route for Digital Health Applications (DIGA) in Germany: critical appraisal and first evaluation of the possible effect on the German Healthcare System. Value Health 2020 Dec;23:S658-S659. [CrossRef]
  87. Botrugno C. Information technologies in healthcare: enhancing or dehumanising doctor-patient interaction? Health (London) 2021 Jul 18;25(4):475-493. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  88. Grundy Q, Chiu K, Held F, Continella A, Bero L, Holz R. Data sharing practices of medicines related apps and the mobile ecosystem: traffic, content, and network analysis. BMJ 2019 Mar 20;364:l920 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]


DSM: diabetes self-management
HCP: health care professional
mHealth: mobile health
T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus


Edited by K Mizokami-Stout; submitted 01.03.21; peer-reviewed by N Gordon, L Nelson, C Della Vecchia, S Li; comments to author 24.04.21; revised version received 30.06.21; accepted 24.03.22; published 28.07.22

Copyright

©Hessah Alaslawi, Ilhem Berrou, Abdullah Al Hamid, Dari Alhuwail, Zoe Aslanpour. Originally published in JMIR Diabetes (https://diabetes.jmir.org), 28.07.2022.

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 JMIR Diabetes, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://diabetes.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.