OBJECTIVE: To investigate how individuals with diabetes and diabetes educators reason about data collected through self-monitoring and to draw implications for the design of data-driven self-management technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten individuals with diabetes (six type 1 and four type 2) and 2 experienced diabetes educators were presented with a set of self-monitoring data captured by an individual with type 2 diabetes. The set included digital images of meals and their textual descriptions, and blood glucose (BG) readings captured before and after these meals. The participants were asked to review a set of meals and associated BG readings, explain differences in postprandial BG levels for these meals, and predict postprandial BG levels for the same individual for a different set of meals. Researchers compared conclusions and predictions reached by the participants with those arrived at by quantitative analysis of the collected data. RESULTS: The participants used both macronutrient composition of meals, most notably the inclusion of carbohydrates, and names of dishes and ingredients to reason about changes in postprandial BG levels. Both individuals with diabetes and diabetes educators reported difficulties in generating predictions of postprandial BG; their predictions varied in their correlations with the actual captured readings from r = 0.008 to r = 0.75. CONCLUSION: Overall, the study showed that identifying trends in the data collected with self-monitoring is a complex process, and that conclusions reached by both individuals with diabetes and diabetes educators are not always reliable. This suggests the need for new ways to facilitate individuals' reasoning with informatics interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate how individuals with diabetes and diabetes educators reason about data collected through self-monitoring and to draw implications for the design of data-driven self-management technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten individuals with diabetes (six type 1 and four type 2) and 2 experienced diabetes educators were presented with a set of self-monitoring data captured by an individual with type 2 diabetes. The set included digital images of meals and their textual descriptions, and blood glucose (BG) readings captured before and after these meals. The participants were asked to review a set of meals and associated BG readings, explain differences in postprandial BG levels for these meals, and predict postprandial BG levels for the same individual for a different set of meals. Researchers compared conclusions and predictions reached by the participants with those arrived at by quantitative analysis of the collected data. RESULTS: The participants used both macronutrient composition of meals, most notably the inclusion of carbohydrates, and names of dishes and ingredients to reason about changes in postprandial BG levels. Both individuals with diabetes and diabetes educators reported difficulties in generating predictions of postprandial BG; their predictions varied in their correlations with the actual captured readings from r = 0.008 to r = 0.75. CONCLUSION: Overall, the study showed that identifying trends in the data collected with self-monitoring is a complex process, and that conclusions reached by both individuals with diabetes and diabetes educators are not always reliable. This suggests the need for new ways to facilitate individuals' reasoning with informatics interventions.
Authors: Laura M C Welschen; Evelien Bloemendal; Giel Nijpels; Jacqueline M Dekker; Robert J Heine; Wim A B Stalman; Lex M Bouter Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Mary Ann Sevick; Roslyn A Stone; Matthew Novak; Beth Piraino; Linda Snetselaar; Rita M Marsh; Beth Hall; Heather Lash; Judith Bernardini; Lora E Burke Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2008-02-02 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Ryan J Shaw; Q Yang; A Barnes; D Hatch; M J Crowley; A Vorderstrasse; J Vaughn; A Diane; A A Lewinski; M Jiang; J Stevenson; D Steinberg Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Marissa Burgermaster; Jung H Son; Patricia G Davidson; Arlene M Smaldone; Gilad Kuperman; Daniel J Feller; Katherine Gardner Burt; Matthew E Levine; David J Albers; Chunhua Weng; Lena Mamykina Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Meghan Reading Turchioe; Elizabeth M Heitkemper; Maichou Lor; Marissa Burgermaster; Lena Mamykina Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Elliot G Mitchell; Elizabeth M Heitkemper; Marissa Burgermaster; Matthew E Levine; Yishen Miao; Maria L Hwang; Pooja M Desai; Andrea Cassells; Jonathan N Tobin; Esteban G Tabak; David J Albers; Arlene M Smaldone; Lena Mamykina Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: Lena Mamykina; Elizabeth M Heitkemper; Arlene M Smaldone; Rita Kukafka; Heather J Cole-Lewis; Patricia G Davidson; Elizabeth D Mynatt; Andrea Cassells; Jonathan N Tobin; George Hripcsak Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2017-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Elliot G Mitchell; Esteban G Tabak; Matthew E Levine; Lena Mamykina; David J Albers Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2020-12-13 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: David J Albers; Matthew Levine; Bruce Gluckman; Henry Ginsberg; George Hripcsak; Lena Mamykina Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 4.475