| Literature DB >> 28657235 |
Hun Sung Kim1,2, So Jung Yang1, Yoo Jin Jeong1, Young Eun Kim3,4, Seok Won Hong3, Jae Hyoung Cho5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Private local clinics in Korea have little experience with information technology (IT)-based glucose monitoring (ITGM). Our aim is to examine user satisfaction and the possibility of using ITGM service practically.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetes mellitus; Glucose monitoring; Telemedicine; Telemonitoring
Year: 2017 PMID: 28657235 PMCID: PMC5489502 DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2017.41.3.213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Metab J ISSN: 2233-6079 Impact factor: 5.376
Fig. 1Service process of information technology-based glucose monitoring service. CDSS, clinical decision support system.
Survey of satisfaction with ITGM application service
| Seven questions about the intentions to use the service in the future | |
| ✓ | Overall service satisfaction? |
| ✓ | If the satisfaction result is not good, why? |
| ✓ | Was the information earned through this service satisfying? |
| ✓ | Are you willing to use this service in the future? |
| ✓ | If so, why? |
| ✓ | Are you willing to recommend this service to other patients in the future? |
| ✓ | If so, why? |
| Six questions regarding the equipment to be used for the service and the program satisfaction as well as convenience | |
| ✓ | Are you satisfied with the quality of communication (contents understanding, accuracy) with the medical staff during usage of the service? |
| ✓ | Was the service-enabled equipment easy and convenient to use? |
| ✓ | Was measured information from the ITGM equipment accurately transmitted to the application? |
| ✓ | Were networks supporting the ITGM service well equipped in speed and stability? |
| ✓ | Did the quality of equipment used for the ITGM service appropriate? |
| ✓ | Was quality of the ITGM service appropriate? |
| Two questions about difficulty in using the equipment or application | |
| ✓ | Did you experience any errors or difficulties in using the ITGM service? |
| ✓ | If so, what was/were the cause(s)? |
| Seven questions on the efficacy/usability (in terms of healthcare and improving the relationship between doctors and patients) of the ITGM service | |
| ✓ | Did you begin to check your health status more regularly than before using this service? |
| ✓ | Do you pay more attention to your health management than before using this service? |
| ✓ | Do you follow your doctor’s advice better since using the ITGM service? |
| ✓ | Do you feel your doctor refers to your information in the ITGM application during consultation? |
| ✓ | Do you plan to continue using the medical institution that provided the ITGM service? |
| ✓ | Did the reliability of the medical institution with the ITGM service improve? |
| ✓ | Do you feel that the ITGM service is a good method of management for chronic diseases? |
ITGM, information technology-based glucose monitoring.
Fig. 2Trial profile. The final number of peoples who returned the survey was 107.
Baseline characteristics of survey participants (n=107)
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 70 (65.4) |
| Female | 37 (34.6) |
| Age, yr | 56.4±9.9 |
| <50 | 30 (28.0) |
| ≥50 and <60 | 39 (36.5) |
| ≥60 | 38 (35.5) |
| Height, cm | 164.4±8.4 |
| Weight, kg | 69.4±11.6 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 25.6±3.2 |
| Underweight (<18.5) | 1 (0.9) |
| Healthy weight (18.5–22.9) | 20 (18.7) |
| Overweight (23.0–24.9) | 28 (26.2) |
| Obesity grade 1 (25.0–29.9) | 49 (45.8) |
| Obesity grade 2 (>30) | 9 (8.4) |
| Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg | 122±14 |
| Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg | 75±10 |
| Type of management | |
| Life-style management | 4 (3.7) |
| One OHA | 62 (57.9) |
| Multiple OHA | 37 (34.6) |
| Only insulin | 1 (0.9) |
| Insulin+OHA | 3 (2.8) |
| Interval between enrollment and survey, day | 54±13 |
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.
OHA, oral hypoglycemia agent.
Number of input data of blood glucose from patients and messages from physicians
| Variable | No. | No. of message to patients from physicians | No. of message to patients from physicians | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | Mean±SD | ||||||
| Sex | 0.8728 | 0.7249 | 0.4816 | 0.2927 | |||
| Male | 69 | 40.7±33.8 | 13.0±6.7 | ||||
| Female | 37 | 41.8±36.0 | 12.1±5.2 | ||||
| Age, yr | 0.1757 | 0.1070 | 0.4399 | 0.5209 | |||
| <50 | 30 | 32.3±27.5 | 11.7±6.7 | ||||
| ≥50 and <60 | 39 | 41.1±35.0 | 12.4±6.4 | ||||
| ≥60 | 37 | 48.1±37.9 | 13.6±5.6 | ||||
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 0.7839 | 0.7804 | 0.3761 | 0.2267 | |||
| <22.9 | 20 | 42.5±37.5 | 12.7±5.6 | ||||
| 23.0–24.9 | 28 | 43.0±22.6 | 14.0±6.6 | ||||
| ≥25 | 58 | 39.7±38.3 | 12.0±6.2 | ||||
| Total | 106 | 41±34 | - | - | 13±6 | - | - |
SD, standard deviation.
aCrude effect, bAdjusted by clinic, sex, age, body mass index, blood pressure, and glucose.
Satisfaction score according to age group
| Variable | Total | Age, yr | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <50 | ≥50 and <60 | ≥60 | ||||
| No. (%) | 107 | 30 (28.0) | 39 (36.5) | 38 (35.5) | ||
| Satisfaction of service | ||||||
| Overall satisfaction | 4.2±0.8 | 4.1±0.9 | 4.1±0.9 | 4.3±0.8 | 0.4487 | 0.3136 |
| Information satisfaction | 4.3±0.8 | 4.0±0.8 | 4.3±0.8 | 4.5±0.8 | 0.0337 | 0.1339 |
| Intent for future use | 4.2±0.8 | 4.0±0.8 | 4.1±0.8 | 4.4±0.7 | 0.1326 | 0.4505 |
| Intention of recommendation to others | 4.3±0.7 | 4.0±0.8 | 4.2±0.7 | 4.5±0.7 | 0.0442 | 0.1837 |
| Satisfaction of equipment | 4.2±0.7 | 4.0±0.9 | 4.2±0.6 | 4.4±0.6 | 0.1045 | 0.1059 |
| Usefulness assessment | 4.5±0.5 | 4.4±0.5 | 4.4±0.6 | 4.6±0.4 | 0.0491 | 0.1747 |
| Patient assessment of chronic illness care | ||||||
| Patient activation | 3.8±1.0 | 3.8±1.0 | 3.7±1.1 | 4.0±0.9 | 0.5156 | 0.5938 |
| Delivery system/practice design | 3.9±0.9 | 4.0±0.7 | 3.7±1.0 | 3.9±0.9 | 0.4583 | 0.1830 |
| Goal setting/tailoring | 3.3±0.9 | 3.2±0.9 | 3.2±1.0 | 3.5±1.0 | 0.2050 | 0.7797 |
| Problem solving/contextual | 3.6±1.0 | 3.4±0.9 | 3.7±1.0 | 3.7±1.1 | 0.2038 | 0.2788 |
| Follow-up/coordination | 2.9±1.1 | 2.7±1.1 | 2.8±1.0 | 3.1±1.1 | 0.1658 | 0.7121 |
| Total | 17.4±4.1 | 17.0±3.7 | 16.8±4.1 | 18.3±4.3 | 0.2425 | 0.8953 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
aCrude effect, bAdjusted by clinic, sex, age, body mass index, blood pressure, and glucose.
Characteristics of respondents by MMS score
| Characteristic | No. | MMS motivation | MMS knowledge | MMS total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | Mean±SD | Mean±SD | ||||||||
| Sex | 0.5801 | 0.9596 | 0.2562 | 0.5927 | 0.8769 | 0.9508 | ||||
| Male | 65 | 2.2±1.1 | 2.6±0.6 | 4.7±1.4 | ||||||
| Female | 37 | 2.3±0.9 | 2.4±0.7 | 4.8±1.2 | ||||||
| Age, yr | 0.2041 | 0.4682 | 0.1536 | 0.1141 | 0.5999 | 0.7101 | ||||
| <50 | 30 | 2.0±1.0 | 2.7±0.5 | 4.8±1.2 | ||||||
| ≥50 and <60 | 35 | 2.1±1.0 | 2.5±0.7 | 4.5±1.3 | ||||||
| ≥60 | 37 | 2.4±1.0 | 2.4±0.6 | 4.8±1.4 | ||||||
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 20 | 0.2286 | 0.4949 | 0.1107 | 0.2073 | 0.9876 | 0.9699 | |||
| <22.9 | 2.5±1.0 | 2.3±0.7 | 4.8±1.5 | |||||||
| 23.0–24.9 | 27 | 2.3±0.9 | 2.5±0.7 | 4.7±1.4 | ||||||
| ≥25 | 55 | 2.1±1.1 | 2.6±0.5 | 4.7±1.2 | ||||||
| Total | 102 | 2.2±1.0 | - | - | 2.5±0.6 | - | - | 4.7±1.3 | - | - |
MMS, modified Morisky scale; SD, standard deviation.
aCrude effect, bAdjusted by clinic, sex, age, body mass index, blood pressure, and glucose.
Results of respondents by MMS score
| Variable | No. (%) | Average MMS | High motivation group (score ≥2) | High knowledge group (score ≥2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall satisfaction | ||||
| Positive responsea | 84 (83.2) | 4.8±1.3 | 77.7 | 98.8 |
| Neutralb+Negative responsec | 17 (16.8) | 4.5±1.4 | 70.6 | 94.1 |
| | 0.3849 | 0.5311 | 0.2014 | |
| Information satisfaction | ||||
| Positive responsea | 91 (90.1) | 4.7±1.3 | 79.4 | 97.8 |
| Neutralb+Negative responsec | 10 (9.9) | 4.5±1.2 | 50.0 | 100.0 |
| | 0.5721 | 0.0377 | 0.6377 | |
| Intent for future use | ||||
| Positive responsea | 87 (86.1) | 4.8±1.3 | 80.0 | 97.7 |
| Neutralb+Negative responsec | 14 (13.9) | 4.5±1.1 | 57.1 | 100.0 |
| | 0.4940 | 0.0664 | 0.5689 | |
| Intention of recommendation to others | ||||
| Positive responsea | 91 (90.1) | 4.7±1.3 | 78.3 | 98.9 |
| Neutralb+Negative responsec | 10 (9.9) | 4.5±1.6 | 60.0 | 90.0 |
| | 0.5721 | 0.1960 | 0.0535 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
MMS, modified Morisky scale.
aPositive response: highly satisfied and mostly satisfied, bNeutral response: average, cNegative response: mostly unsatisfied, fully unsatisfied.