Factors associated with probability of personal digital assistant-based dietary self-monitoring in those with type 2 diabetes
Abstract
Knowledge of factors associated with the use of technology could inform the design of technology-based behavioral interventions. This study examined modifiable and nonmodifiable factors associated with technology-based self-monitoring. 123 participants with type 2 diabetes self-monitored diet using a personal digital assistant in a 6-month behavioral intervention. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine probability of nonadherent and suboptimally adherent behavior relative to adherent behavior. Sociodemographic characteristics were not associated with probability of self-monitoring. Probability of adherence generally was greater in the weeks preceding no group session, and lower in the weeks following no group session or following skipped sessions. Non-modifiable factors suggested by the literature to be associated with poorer access to technology (lower income, older age, minority race, and lower education) were not associated with probability of self-monitoring in this population.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Decrease in usage after gaining a sense of mastery over diabetes is in line with findings by relevant studies.
“Decrease in usage after gaining a sense of mastery over diabetes is in line with findings by relevant studies [30,32,62].”
From Long-Term Engagement With a Mobile Self-Management System for People With Type 2 Diabetes (2013) · cites this paper as [32]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 20
- Authors
- Sevick, M. A., Stone, R. A., Zickmund, S., Wang, Y., Korytkowski, M., & Burke, L. E.
- Affiliations
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sevick, Mary Ann
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Medicine
- Published
- 2010-03-16
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 315-325
- ISSN
- 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3521
- OpenAlex
- W1992122363
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 5.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5p30dk046204-15)
- National Institute of Nursing Research (NR-R01008792)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases ((DK 046204)
- National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000056, UL1RR024153)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, dietary self-monitoring, personal digital assistants, adherence, sociodemographic factors, access to technology, socioeconomic status, group sessions, diabetes self-management
- MeSH terms
- Behavior Therapy, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diet, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Self Care, Health Behavior, Logistic Models, Treatment Outcome, Computers, Handheld
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review