Cited by 64Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and Research

Testing a Smartphone App (Young with Diabetes) to Improve Self-Management of Diabetes Over 12 Months: Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Castensøe-Seidenfaden, Pernille, Husted, Gitte Reventlov, Jensen, Andreas Kryger, Hommel, Eva, Olsen, Birthe, Pedersen-Bjergaard, Ulrik, Kensing, Finn, Teilmann, Grete·2018·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Young people often struggle to self-manage type 1 diabetes during the transition from childhood to adulthood. Mobile health (mHealth) apps may have the potential to support self-management, but evidence is limited and randomized controlled trials are needed. Objective: We assessed whether the mHealth app “Young with Diabetes” improved young people’s self-management measured by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and three self-reported psychometric scales. Methods: Young people (14-22 years) with inadequate glycemic control and their parents were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial and assigned either to Young with Diabetes and usual care (Young with Diabetes group) or to usual care alone (control). Young with Diabetes use was monitored; functions included a chat room, contact the health care provider, reminders, tips, information about the diabetes department and type 1 diabetes topics, carbohydrate counting, and a parents’ section. Outcomes included HbA1c and three self-reported psychometric scales: Perceived Competence in Diabetes Scale; Health Care Climate Questionnaire; and Problem Areas In Diabetes care survey. Data were collected at baseline and at 2, 7, and 12 months. Results: A total of 151 young people were randomized (Young with Diabetes group=76, control=75) and 49 parents agreed to participate. At 12 months, HbA1c was significantly higher (4.1 mmol/mol; 0.4 %) in the Young with Diabetes group, compared to the control group (P=.04); this finding did not occur when comparing app users (Young with Diabetes use ≥5 days) with nonusers. Young people used Young with Diabetes on a mean of 10.5 days. They spent the most time chatting about alcohol and searching for information about sex. Most young people and half of the parents reported that Young with Diabetes helped them. More than 80% would recommend Young with Diabetes to peers. Conclusions: Young with Diabetes did not improve HbA1c, but it may be a useful complement to self-management. Qualitative evaluation is needed to explore benefits and shortcomings of Young with Diabetes. Health care providers should address young peoples’ knowledge about sensitive topics, provide them with peer support, and be aware of parents’ need for information about how to support Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02632383; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02632383 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zCK2u7xM)

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/mhealth.9487

Cites

46 of 46 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

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: 2

  1. [23]Liang K Zeger S Longitudinal data analysis of continuous and discrete responses for pre-post designs Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics Series B 2000 04 134 148
  2. [33]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 2017-11-09 Diabetes in children and young people https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs125 29206391

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Castensøe-Seidenfaden, P., Husted, G. R., Jensen, A. K., Hommel, E., Olsen, B., Pedersen-Bjergaard, U., Kensing, F., & Teilmann, G.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2018-06-26
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
e141
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2810222251
Cited by
63
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2
FWCI
8.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen (SDCC 3.E Technology)
  • Herlev Hospital
  • Region Hovedstaden
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 › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, diabetes self-management, mobile health apps, adolescents and young adults, glycemic control, HbA1c, transition to adult care, parental involvement, perceived competence, peer support, alcohol, sex, carbohydrate counting, reminders

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