Cited by 43Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationDiabetes Management and EducationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Qualitative study of telemonitoring of blood glucose and blood pressure in type 2 diabetes

Open access
Hanley, Janet, Fairbrother, Peter, McCloughan, Lucy, Pagliari, Claudia, Paterson, Mary, Pinnock, Hilary, Sheikh, Aziz, Wild, Sarah +1 more·2015·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients and professionals taking part in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of blood glucose, blood pressure (BP) and weight telemonitoring in type 2 diabetes supported by primary care, and identify factors facilitating or hindering the effectiveness of the intervention and those likely to influence its potential translation to routine practice. Design: Qualitative study adopting an interpretive descriptive approach. Participants: 23 patients, 6 nurses and 4 doctors who were participating in a RCT of blood glucose and BP telemonitoring. A maximum variation sample of patients from within the trial based on age, sex and deprivation status of the practice was sought. Setting: 12 primary care practices in Scotland and England. Method: Data were collected via recorded semistructured interviews. Analysis was inductive with themes presented within an overarching thematic framework. Multiple strategies were employed to ensure that the analysis was credible and trustworthy. Results: Telemonitoring of blood glucose, BP and weight by people with type 2 diabetes was feasible. The data generated by telemonitoring supported self-care decisions and medical treatment decisions. Motivation to self-manage diet was increased by telemonitoring of blood glucose, and the ‘benign policing’ aspect of telemonitoring was considered by patients to be important. The convenience of home monitoring was very acceptable to patients although professionals had some concerns about telemonitoring increasing workload and costs. Conclusions: Telemonitoring of blood glucose, BP and weight in primary care is a promising way of improving diabetes management which would be highly acceptable to the type of patients who volunteered for this study. Trial registration number: ISRCTN71674628; Pre-results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008896

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanley, J., Fairbrother, P., McCloughan, L., Pagliari, C., Paterson, M., Pinnock, H., Sheikh, A., Wild, S., & McKinstry, B.
Affiliations
  • Edinburgh Napier University (GB)
  • NHS Lothian (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Hanley, Janet
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-12
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
e008896
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2220086083
Cited by
43
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Output (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Scottish Government
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/J017728/2)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
remote patient monitoring, type 2 diabetes, blood glucose monitoring, blood pressure monitoring, weight monitoring, self-management, primary care, patient experience, health professionals' experiences, feasibility
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Body Weight, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Scotland, Self Care, Biomarkers, Telemedicine, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Qualitative Research

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