Yaa A Kumah-Crystal1, Korey K Hood2, Yu-Xian Ho3, Cindy K Lybarger1, Brendan H O'Connor4, Russell L Rothman5, Shelagh A Mulvaney1,3,4. 1. 1 Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville, Tennessee. 2. 2 Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University , Palo Alto, California. 3. 3 Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville, Tennessee. 4. 4 School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville, Tennessee. 5. 5 Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examines technology use for problem solving in diabetes and its relationship to hemoglobin A1C (A1C). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A sample of 112 adolescents with type 1 diabetes completed measures assessing use of technologies for diabetes problem solving, including mobile applications, social technologies, and glucose software. Hierarchical regression was performed to identify the contribution of a new nine-item Technology Use for Problem Solving in Type 1 Diabetes (TUPS) scale to A1C, considering known clinical contributors to A1C. RESULTS: Mean age for the sample was 14.5 (SD 1.7) years, mean A1C was 8.9% (SD 1.8%), 50% were female, and diabetes duration was 5.5 (SD 3.5) years. Cronbach's α reliability for TUPS was 0.78. In regression analyses, variables significantly associated with A1C were the socioeconomic status (β = -0.26, P < 0.01), Diabetes Adolescent Problem Solving Questionnaire (β = -0.26, P = 0.01), and TUPS (β = 0.26, P = 0.01). Aside from the Diabetes Self-Care Inventory--Revised, each block added significantly to the model R(2). The final model R(2) was 0.22 for modeling A1C (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate a counterintuitive relationship between higher use of technologies for problem solving and higher A1C. Adolescents with poorer glycemic control may use technology in a reactive, as opposed to preventive, manner. Better understanding of the nature of technology use for self-management over time is needed to guide the development of technology-mediated problem solving tools for youth with type 1 diabetes.
BACKGROUND: This study examines technology use for problem solving in diabetes and its relationship to hemoglobin A1C (A1C). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A sample of 112 adolescents with type 1 diabetes completed measures assessing use of technologies for diabetes problem solving, including mobile applications, social technologies, and glucose software. Hierarchical regression was performed to identify the contribution of a new nine-item Technology Use for Problem Solving in Type 1 Diabetes (TUPS) scale to A1C, considering known clinical contributors to A1C. RESULTS: Mean age for the sample was 14.5 (SD 1.7) years, mean A1C was 8.9% (SD 1.8%), 50% were female, and diabetes duration was 5.5 (SD 3.5) years. Cronbach's α reliability for TUPS was 0.78. In regression analyses, variables significantly associated with A1C were the socioeconomic status (β = -0.26, P < 0.01), Diabetes Adolescent Problem Solving Questionnaire (β = -0.26, P = 0.01), and TUPS (β = 0.26, P = 0.01). Aside from the Diabetes Self-Care Inventory--Revised, each block added significantly to the model R(2). The final model R(2) was 0.22 for modeling A1C (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate a counterintuitive relationship between higher use of technologies for problem solving and higher A1C. Adolescents with poorer glycemic control may use technology in a reactive, as opposed to preventive, manner. Better understanding of the nature of technology use for self-management over time is needed to guide the development of technology-mediated problem solving tools for youth with type 1 diabetes.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Shelagh A Mulvaney; Russell L Rothman; Kenneth A Wallston; Cindy Lybarger; Mary S Dietrich Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Adam B Lewin; Annette M LaGreca; Gary R Geffken; Laura B Williams; Danny C Duke; Eric A Storch; Janet H Silverstein Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2009-05-07
Authors: Yaa A Kumah-Crystal; Preston M Stein; Qingxia Chen; Christoph U Lehmann; Laurie L Novak; Sydney Roth; S Trent Rosenbloom Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Sarah E Vaala; Korey K Hood; Lori Laffel; Yaa A Kumah-Crystal; Cindy K Lybarger; Shelagh A Mulvaney Journal: Interact J Med Res Date: 2015-12-29