Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34473062›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Readiness and Acceptance of eHealth Services for Diabetes Care in the General Population: Cross-sectional Study.

P V AshaRani, Lau Jue Hua, Kumarasan Roystonn, Fiona Devi Siva Kumar, Wang Peizhi, Soo Ying Jie, Saleha Shafie, Sherilyn Chang, Anitha Jeyagurunathan, Chua Boon Yiang and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Digital Health Technology in Diabetes Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Narrative Review of the Current Scenario and Future Outlook.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. eHealth profile of patients with diabetes.Frontiers in public health · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

P V AshaRaniResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8215-5214
Lau Jue HuaResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5625-2384
Kumarasan RoystonnResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9100-0353
Fiona Devi Siva KumarResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9367-5258
Wang PeizhiResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7054-1879
Soo Ying JieResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-0489-6460
Saleha ShafieResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-3643-6573
Sherilyn ChangResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9716-4543
Anitha JeyagurunathanResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8576-4672
Chua Boon YiangResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2642-4421
Edimansyah AbdinResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-1016-3298
Janhavi Ajit VaingankarResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9486-1896
Chee Fang SumAdmiralty Medical Centre, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3532-0568
Eng Sing LeeClinical Research Unit, National Healthcare Group Polyclinics, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4963-535X
Siow Ann ChongResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8889-7980
Mythily SubramaniamResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4530-1096
Institute of Mental Health · SGKhoo Teck Puat Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes management is a growing health care challenge worldwide. eHealth can revolutionize diabetes care, the success of which depends on end user acceptance.

objectiveThis study aims to understand the readiness and acceptance of eHealth services for diabetes care among the general population, perceived advantages and disadvantages of eHealth, and factors associated with eHealth readiness and acceptance in a multiethnic Asian country.

methodsIn this cross-sectional epidemiological study, participants (N=2895) were selected through disproportionate stratified random sampling from a population registry. Citizens or permanent residents of Singapore aged >18 years were recruited. The data were captured through computer-assisted personal interviews. An eHealth questionnaire was administered in one of four local languages (English, Chinese, Malay, or Tamil), as preferred by the participant. Bivariate chi-square analyses were performed to compare the sociodemographic characteristics and perception of advantages and disadvantages of eHealth services between the diabetes and nondiabetes groups. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with eHealth readiness and acceptance. All analyses were weighted using survey weights to account for the complex survey design.

resultsThe sample comprised participants with (n=436) and without (n=2459) diabetes. eHealth readiness was low, with 47.3% of the overall sample and 75.7% of the diabetes group endorsing that they were not ready for eHealth (P<.001). The most acceptable eHealth service overall was booking appointments (67.4%). There was a significantly higher preference in the diabetes group for face-to-face sessions for consultation with the clinician (nondiabetes: 83.5% vs diabetes: 92.6%; P<.001), receiving prescriptions (61.9% vs 79.3%; P<.001), referrals to other doctors (51.4% vs 72.2%; P<.001), and receiving health information (34% vs 63.4%; P<.001). The majority of both groups felt that eHealth requires users to be computer literate (90.5% vs 94.3%), does not build clinician-patient rapport compared with face-to-face sessions (77.5% vs 81%), and might not be credible (56.8% vs 64.2%; P=.03). Age (≥35 years), ethnicity (Indian), and lower education status had lower odds of eHealth readiness. Age (≥35 years), ethnicity (Indian), lower education status (primary school), BMI (being underweight), and marital status (being single) were associated with a lower likelihood of eHealth acceptance. Among only those with diabetes, a longer duration of diabetes (4-18 years), higher education (degree or above), and younger age (23-49 years) were associated with eHealth readiness, whereas younger age and income (SGD 2000-3999 [US $1481-$2961]) were associated with acceptance.

conclusionsOverall, an unfavorable attitude toward eHealth was observed, with a significantly higher number of participants with diabetes reporting their unwillingness to use these services for their diabetes care. Sociodemographic factors associated with acceptance and readiness identified a group of people who were unlikely to accept the technology and thus need to be targeted for eHealth literacy programs to avoid health care disparity. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037125.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusTelemedicineAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHealthcare DisparitiesHumansIndiaMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultacceptancediabeteseHealthgeneral populationreadiness

Identifiers

PMID34473062
PMCPMC8446836
OpenAlexW3197895364

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.