Cited by 58Electronic Health Records SystemsDiabetes Management and EducationTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

The use of information technology to enhance diabetes management in primary care: a literature review

Open access
Adaji, Akuh, Schattner, Peter, Jones, Kay·2008·Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that a more structured approach to diabetes care can lead to better health outcomes. We needed to develop an evidence-based conceptual framework for the Chronic Disease Management Network (CDM-Net) project which aims to use information technology (IT) to optimally support diabetes care in the Barwon region of Victoria, Australia. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to demonstrate the benefits of IT in supporting a systematic approach to diabetes management in general practice and to increase our understanding of perceived barriers to and facilitators to the use of IT in this context. METHODS: The literature review was based on articles extracted from relevant databases by using search terms related to type 2 diabetes and IT. Eligible papers were those based on original studies which evaluated some form of IT intervention in medical practice and were published after 1996 in the English language. Studies evaluating the use of telemedicine were excluded. FINDINGS: IT has been used to provide support to patients, enhance changes in healthcare delivery and provide clinicians with access to expertise and timely, useful data about individual patients and populations. IT use has been associated with a corresponding improvement in measures of diabetes care including HbA1c, blood pressure and lipids, and in the frequency of eye and foot exams. Important barriers to using IT in diabetes care include confidentiality concerns, inadequate funding, workforce shortages, lack of time and anxiety about change. Adequate training and integration into the usual process of care are essential facilitators to implementing IT. CONCLUSIONS: IT can be used to improve diabetes care by promoting a productive and informative interaction between the patient and the care team.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14236/jhi.v16i3.698

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 32 · Cited by 58

Authors
Adaji, A., Schattner, P., & Jones, K.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
Publisher
Portico
Published
2008-11-01
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
229-237
ISSN
  • 1475-9985 (ISSN-L)
  • 2058-4555
OpenAlex
W219468304
Cited by
58
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
diabetes management, information technology, primary care, type 2 diabetes, chronic disease management, barriers and facilitators, HbA1c, patient-clinician interaction, general practice
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Information Systems, Primary Health Care, Victoria

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