Cited by 76Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and EducationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Does the use of consumer health information technology improve outcomes in the patient self-management of diabetes? A meta-analysis and narrative review of randomized controlled trials

Or, Calvin K.L., Tao, Da·2014·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Purpose To assess whether the use of consumer health information technologies (CHITs) improves outcomes in the patient self-management of diabetes.Method The evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of CHITs on patient outcomes was analyzed using either meta-analysis or a narrative synthesis approach. A systematic search of seven electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant reports of RCTs for the analysis. In the meta-analyses, standardized mean differences in patient outcomes were calculated and random-effects models were applied in cases where the heterogeneity of the results was moderate or high, otherwise fixed-effects models were used.Results Sixty-two studies, representing 67 RCTs, met the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analyses showed that the use of CHITs was associated with significant reductions in HbA1c, blood pressure, total cholesterol, and triglycerides levels when compared with the usual care. The findings from the narrative synthesis indicated that only a small proportion of the trials reported positive effects of CHITs on patient outcomes.Conclusions The use of CHITs in supporting diabetes self-management appears to have potential benefits for patients' self-management of diabetes. However, the effectiveness of the technologies in improving patient outcomes still awaits confirmation in future studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.009

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Or, C. K. L., & Tao, D.
Affiliations
University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Or, Calvin K.L.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
83
Issue
5
Pages
320-329
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1992810702
Cited by
76
References
91
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Hong Kong
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
diabetes self-management, patient self-management, HbA1c, blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, patient outcomes, usual care comparison
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Medical Informatics, Quality of Life, Self Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Information Dissemination, Consumer Health Information

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