Michael Domhardt1, Martin Tiefengrabner1, Radomir Dinic1, Ulrike Fötschl2, Gertie J Oostingh2, Thomas Stütz1, Lars Stechemesser3, Raimund Weitgasser4, Simon W Ginzinger5. 1. Department of MultiMediaTechnology, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Puch, Austria. 2. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Puch, Austria. 3. First Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Diakonissen Hospital Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria First Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 5. Department of MultiMediaTechnology, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Puch, Austria simon.ginzinger@fh-salzburg.ac.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Imprecise carbohydrate counting as a measure to guide the treatment of diabetes may be a source of errors resulting in problems in glycemic control. Exact measurements can be tedious, leading most patients to estimate their carbohydrate intake. In the presented pilot study a smartphone application (BE(AR)), that guides the estimation of the amounts of carbohydrates, was used by a group of diabetic patients. METHODS: Eight adult patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 were recruited for the study. At the beginning of the study patients were introduced to BE(AR) in sessions lasting 45 minutes per patient. Patients redraw the real food in 3D on the smartphone screen. Based on a selected food type and the 3D form created using BE(AR) an estimation of carbohydrate content is calculated. Patients were supplied with the application on their personal smartphone or a loaner device and were instructed to use the application in real-world context during the study period. For evaluation purpose a test measuring carbohydrate estimation quality was designed and performed at the beginning and the end of the study. RESULTS: In 44% of the estimations performed at the end of the study the error reduced by at least 6 grams of carbohydrate. This improvement occurred albeit several problems with the usage of BE(AR) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite user interaction problems in this group of patients the provided intervention resulted in a reduction in the absolute error of carbohydrate estimation. Intervention with smartphone applications to assist carbohydrate counting apparently results in more accurate estimations.
BACKGROUND: Imprecise carbohydrate counting as a measure to guide the treatment of diabetes may be a source of errors resulting in problems in glycemic control. Exact measurements can be tedious, leading most patients to estimate their carbohydrate intake. In the presented pilot study a smartphone application (BE(AR)), that guides the estimation of the amounts of carbohydrates, was used by a group of diabeticpatients. METHODS: Eight adult patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 were recruited for the study. At the beginning of the study patients were introduced to BE(AR) in sessions lasting 45 minutes per patient. Patients redraw the real food in 3D on the smartphone screen. Based on a selected food type and the 3D form created using BE(AR) an estimation of carbohydrate content is calculated. Patients were supplied with the application on their personal smartphone or a loaner device and were instructed to use the application in real-world context during the study period. For evaluation purpose a test measuring carbohydrate estimation quality was designed and performed at the beginning and the end of the study. RESULTS: In 44% of the estimations performed at the end of the study the error reduced by at least 6 grams of carbohydrate. This improvement occurred albeit several problems with the usage of BE(AR) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite user interaction problems in this group of patients the provided intervention resulted in a reduction in the absolute error of carbohydrate estimation. Intervention with smartphone applications to assist carbohydrate counting apparently results in more accurate estimations.
Authors: A S Brazeau; H Mircescu; K Desjardins; C Leroux; I Strychar; J M Ekoé; R Rabasa-Lhoret Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2012-11-10 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Fengqing Zhu; Marc Bosch; Insoo Woo; Sungye Kim; Carol J Boushey; David S Ebert; Edward J Delp Journal: IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 6.856
Authors: Michelle R Martins; Ana Cristina T Ambrosio; Marcia Nery; Rita de Cássia Aquino; Marcia S Queiroz Journal: Prim Care Diabetes Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Daniel Rhyner; Hannah Loher; Joachim Dehais; Marios Anthimopoulos; Sergey Shevchik; Ransford Henry Botwey; David Duke; Christoph Stettler; Peter Diem; Stavroula Mougiakakou Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Annemarijn C Prins-van Ginkel; Marieke LA de Hoog; C Uiterwaal; Henriette A Smit; Patricia Cj Bruijning-Verhagen Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: William E Yang; Erin M Spaulding; David Lumelsky; George Hung; Pauline Phuong Huynh; Kellen Knowles; Francoise A Marvel; Valerie Vilarino; Jane Wang; Lochan M Shah; Helen Xun; Rongzi Shan; Shannon Wongvibulsin; Seth S Martin Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Jeffrey E Alfonsi; Elizabeth E Y Choi; Taha Arshad; Stacie-Ann S Sammott; Vanita Pais; Cynthia Nguyen; Bryan R Maguire; Jennifer N Stinson; Mark R Palmert Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 4.773