| Title |
Adherence to evidence-based guidelines among diabetes self-management apps
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Translational Behavioral Medicine, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13142-013-0205-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica Y. Breland, Vivian M. Yeh, Jessica Yu |
| Abstract |
Smartphone apps can provide real-time, interactive self-management aid to individuals with diabetes. It is currently unclear whether existing diabetes self-management apps follow evidence-based guidelines. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which existing diabetes self-management apps address the seven self-management behaviors recommended by the American Association of Diabetes Educators (the AADE7™). The term "diabetes" identified relevant self-management apps via the Apple App Store search engine in March 2012. Ratings were based on app descriptions and downloads. Chi-square analyses assessed differences in apps based on developer type. Apps promoted a median of two AADE7™ skills. Overall reliability between description and download ratings was good (kappa = .66). Reliability of individual skills was variable (kappa = .25 to .91). Most diabetes apps do not conform to evidence-based recommendations, and future app reviews would benefit from testing app performance. Future apps may also benefit from theory-based designs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 195 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 17 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 48 | 24% |
| Unknown | 22 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 27 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 12% |
| Psychology | 21 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 10% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 35 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,612,005
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#234
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,019
of 192,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.