Cited by 20Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and EducationMedication Adherence and Compliance

Factors associated with probability of personal digital assistant-based dietary self-monitoring in those with type 2 diabetes

Sevick, Mary Ann, Stone, Roslyn A., Zickmund, Susan, Wang, Yuanyuan, Korytkowski, Mary, Burke, Lora E.·2010·Journal of Behavioral Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1007/s10865-010-9257-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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