Fig. 1Service process of information technology-based glucose monitoring service. CDSS, clinical decision support system.
Fig. 2Trial profile. The final number of peoples who returned the survey was 107.
Table 1Survey 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? |
Table 2Baseline 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 |
Table 3Number 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 |
P valuea
|
P valueb
|
Mean±SD |
P valuea
|
P valueb
|
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 |
- |
- |
Table 4Satisfaction score according to age group
Variable |
Total |
Age, yr |
P valuea
|
P valueb
|
<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 |
Table 5Characteristics of respondents by MMS score
Characteristic |
No. |
MMS motivation |
MMS knowledge |
MMS total |
Mean±SD |
P valuea
|
P valueb
|
Mean±SD |
P valuea
|
P valueb
|
Mean±SD |
P valuea
|
P valueb
|
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 |
- |
- |
Table 6Results 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 |
P value |
|
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 |
P value |
|
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 |
P value |
|
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 |
P value |
|
0.5721 |
0.1960 |
0.0535 |