Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39282098›Full record

ArticleBMC digital health2024

A M McInerney, N Schmitz, M Matthews, S S Deschênes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

A M McInerneySchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
N SchmitzDepartment of Population-Based Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
M MatthewsSchool of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
S S DeschênesSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital phenotyping, the in-situ collection of passive (phone sensor) and active (daily surveys) data using a digital device, may provide new insights into the complex relationship between daily behaviour and mood for people with type 2 diabetes. However, there are critical knowledge gaps regarding its use in people with type 2 diabetes. This study assessed feasibility, tolerability, and user experience of digital phenotyping in people with and without type 2 diabetes after participation in a 2-month digital phenotyping study in Ireland. At study completion, participants rated methodology elements from "not a problem" to a "serious problem" on a 5-point scale and reported their comfort with the potential future use of digital phenotyping in healthcare, with space for qualitative expansion. Results: Eighty-two participants completed baseline. Attrition was 18.8%. Missing data ranged from 9-44% depending on data stream. Sixty-eight participants (82.9%) completed the user experience questionnaire (51.5% with type 2 diabetes; 61.8% female; median age-group 50-59). Tolerability of digital phenotyping was high, with "not a problem" being selected 76.5%-89.7% of the time across questions. People with type 2 diabetes (93.9%) were significantly more likely to be comfortable with their future healthcare provider having access to their digital phenotyping data than those without (53.1%), χ2 (1) = 14.01, Conclusions: An uncompensated, 2-month digital phenotyping study was feasible among people with and without diabetes, with low attrition and reasonable missing data rates. Participants found digital phenotyping to be acceptable, and even enjoyable. The potential benefits of digital phenotyping for healthcare may be more apparent to people with type 2 diabetes than the general population. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44247-024-00116-6.

Indexed as

Digital phenotypingEcological Momentary AssessmentFeasibilityTolerabilityType 2 DiabetesUser experience

Identifiers

PMID39282098
PMCPMC11390910

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.