ArticleResearch square2026
Acceptability and Feasibility of Implementing a Telehealth Kit for Older Adults with Diabetes in an FQHC Clinic.
Article in Research square, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Telehealth-supported diabetes monitoring may improve diabetes monitoring for older adults who experience barriers to traditional in-person care, but less is known about the acceptability and feasibility of telehealth-supported diabetes management in Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) settings. This pre-post quasi-experimental study examined the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a telehealth kit to support diabetes monitoring among adults aged 50 years and older receiving care at an FQHC clinic. Methods: This single-group pilot feasibility study enrolled adults aged 50 years and older with diabetes who received a telehealth kit that included a Bluetooth-enabled glucometer, blood pressure monitor, testing supplies, written instructions, and in-person training. No randomization or comparator group was used, and the study was not designed to test the efficacy of a new diabetes treatment. Quantitative surveys and glucose data were collected at baseline, 30 days, and 60 days to describe feasibility indicators and exploratory glucose trends. Qualitative open-ended responses were collected at baseline and follow-up visits and analyzed using rapid thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to telehealth engagement. Results: Thirty participants completed the study. Participants were predominantly female (60.0%) and Non-Hispanic Black (66.7%); all reported smartphone and internet access, and most reported medium-high or high digital confidence. Mean glucose values remained relatively stable from baseline to 30 and 60 days, with overall means of 122.7, 127.9, and 117.4, respectively. Participants younger than 65 years experienced a significant reduction in glucose at 60 days compared with those aged 65 years and older. No significant differences in glucose change were observed by education, digital confidence, or medication adherence. Qualitative findings identified four themes: acceptability and usefulness of the telehealth platform over time; platform usability and authentication barriers; the role of digital literacy and support systems in participation; and contextual and infrastructural barriers beyond platform usability. Conclusions: Telehealth-supported diabetes monitoring was acceptable and feasible for some older adults receiving care in an FQHC setting, but engagement was conditional on reliable connectivity, usable platform design, successful authentication, and ongoing support. Findings suggest that future feasibility and implementation in medically underserved settings should incorporate simplified technology workflows, structured onboarding, technical assistance, and, when appropriate, family or caregiver support.
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.