ArticleActa diabetologica2026
Perceptions of use and value for different types of digital health solutions among people with type 1 and 2 diabetes in France.
Article in Acta diabetologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study examines the use, perceptions, and inequalities in access to Digital Health Solutions (DHS) among people with diabetes (PwD). It aims to identify factors influencing adoption and explore perceived benefits and barriers to using DHS, focusing on person-important outcomes such as physical health, mental burden, and access to care.
methodsThe primary objective of this feasibility study was to assess the intervention acceptability, feasibility, and app usability. The secondary aim is to explore preliminary intervention effects.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted in France from April to July 2022. A total of 301 PwD (149 with type 1 diabetes [T1D], 152 with type 2 diabetes [T2D]) completed the study. The survey assessed the use of three DHS categories: information/education (DHS1), self-management support (DHS2), and data-sharing/collaborative care (DHS3). We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to identify predictors of DHS use, including demographic, socioeconomic, psychological, and medical variables.
resultsDHS1 was the most commonly used category, followed by DHS2 and DHS3. PwD with T1D were more likely to use multiple DHS. Type of diabetes and perceived health status were the strongest predictors of DHS use. Surprisingly, people in poorer health were less likely to use DHS despite potentially benefiting most from them. DHS-naïve individuals expected more benefits but reported greater concerns, especially about information overload and data security. These concerns were stronger than the perceived benefits. For example, concerns about data security reduced the likelihood of using DHS2 and DHS3 by up to 89%.
conclusionThe study highlights disparities in DHS adoption and the critical role of perceived barriers. Addressing these concerns-particularly among PwD in poorer health-and aligning DHS with outcomes that matter to patients may improve equitable adoption and diabetes care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.