CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and EducationDigital Mental Health Interventions

Health Internet Technology for Chronic Conditions: Review of Diabetes Management Apps

Open access
Sneha, Sweta, Thalla, Srivarun, Rischie, Ishaan, Shahriar, Hossain·2021·JMIR Diabetes
DOI 10.2196/17431PMC PMC8441611

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) smartphone apps have shown promise in the self-management of chronic disease. In today’s oversaturated health app market, selection criteria that consumers are employing to choose mHealth apps for disease self-management are of paramount importance. App quality is critical in monitoring disease controls but is often linked to consumer popularity rather than clinical recommendations of effectiveness in disease management. Management of key disease variances can be performed through these apps to increase patient engagement in disease self-management. This paper provides a comprehensive review of features found in mHealth apps frequently used in the self- management of diabetes. Objective: The purpose of this study was to review features of frequently used and high consumer-rated mHealth apps used in the self-management of diabetes. This study aimed to highlight key features of consumer-favored mHealth apps used in the self-management of diabetes. Methods: A 2-fold approach was adopted involving the Apple iOS store and the Google search engine. The primary search was conducted on the Apple iOS store using the term “diabetes apps” (device used: Apple iPad). The top 5 most frequently used mHealth apps were identified and rated by the number of consumer reviews, app ratings, and the presence of key diabetes management features, such as dietary blood glucose, A1C, insulin, physical activity, and prescription medication. A subsequent Google search was conducted using the search term “best Apple diabetes apps.” The top 3 search results—“Healthline,” “Everyday Health,” and “Diabetes Apps–American Diabetes Association”—were explored. Results: In total, 12 mHealth apps were reviewed due to their appearing across 4 evaluated sources. Only 1 health app—Glucose Buddy Diabetes Tracker—appeared as the most frequently used within the Apple iOS store and across the other 3 sources. The OneTouch Reveal app ranked first on the list in the iOS store with 39,000 consumer reviews and a rating of 4.7 out of 5.0 stars but only appeared in 1 of the other 3 sources. Blood glucose tracking was present across all apps, but other disease management features varied in type with at least 3 of the 5 key features being present across the 12 reviewed apps. Subscription cost and integration needs were present in the apps which could impact consumers’ decision to select apps. Although mobile app preference was assessed and defined by the number of consumer reviews and star ratings, there were no scientific standards used in the selection and ranking of the health apps within this study. Conclusions: mHealth apps have shown promise in chronic disease management, but a surge in development of these nonregulated health solutions points to a need for regulation, standardization, and quality control. A governing body of health IT professionals, clinicians, policymakers, payors, and patients could be beneficial in defining health app standards for effective chronic disease management. Variabilities in features, cost, and other aspects of management could be reduced by regulatory uniformity, which would increase patient engagement and improve disease outcomes.

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 · 10.2196/17431

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Diabetes is directly influenced by various lifestyle factors, and lifestyle modifications are the cornerstones of nonpharmacological management of T2DM.

    “Given that diabetes is directly influenced by various lifestyle factors, lifestyle modifications, including dietary changes, weight management, increased physical activity, smoking cessation, and psychological support, are the cornerstones of nonpharmacological management of the condition [4,6-10].”

    From Evaluation of the Impact of Mobile Health App Vitadio in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial (2025) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Introduction’s “Mobile Management of Diabetes” section recommends modifiable lifestyle changes for type 2 diabetes, while “Diet” and “Exercise” describe dietary habits and physical activity as relevant to management. The paper does not establish the full cited list—particularly smoking cessation and psychological support—as cornerstones of nonpharmacological management; its “Prescription Medication” section also emphasizes medication adherence alongside diet and exercise. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]Largest healthcare data breaches of 2018 HIPAA Journal 2018 2021-07-30 http://www.hipaajournal.com/largest-healthcare-data-breaches-of-2018/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sneha, S., Thalla, S., Rischie, I., & Shahriar, H.
Affiliations
  • Kennesaw State University (US)
  • Rice University (US)
Corresponding author
Sneha, Sweta
ORCID
Venue
JMIR Diabetes
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2021-08-31
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e17431
ISSN
2371-4379 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/17431
PMC
PMC8441611
OpenAlex
W3168031824
Cited by
20
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Diabetes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile health, chronic disease self-management, app quality, consumer reviews, blood glucose monitoring, insulin management, physical activity monitoring, patient engagement

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