Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Implementation of Technology-Delivered Diabetes Self-care Interventions in Clinical Care: a Narrative Review

  • Psychosocial Aspects (SS Jaser, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Diabetes Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Evidence is growing for the positive effects of technology-delivered diabetes self-care interventions on behavioral and clinical outcomes. However, our understanding of how to effectively implement these interventions into routine clinical practice is limited. This article provides an overview of the methods and results of studies examining the implementation of technology-delivered diabetes self-care interventions into clinical care. We focus specifically on patient-facing behavioral interventions delivered with technology (e.g., text messaging, apps, websites).

Recent Findings

Eleven articles were included in the review. Most studies (n = 9) examined barriers and facilitators to implementation, while about half (n = 5) integrated the intervention into clinical care and evaluated implementation and/or effectiveness. Only six studies applied a theory or framework. The most common determinants of implementation were time constraints for clinic staff, familiarity with technology, knowledge of the intervention, and perceived value. We found substantial variation in implementation outcomes, including which were reported, how they were assessed, and the results. In the four studies that evaluated effectiveness, hemoglobin A1c improved.

Summary

Successful implementation of technology-delivered interventions has the potential to transform healthcare delivery and improve diabetes health on a population level. Promising strategies to address common determinants of implementation include appointing a clinic champion, developing staff training and educational materials, and adapting intervention processes to the clinic context. Future research should evaluate these implementation strategies to understand when and how they impact outcomes. Frameworks such as Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) can help ensure outcomes are systematically reported and allow for comparison across studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Ahola AJ, Groop PH. Barriers to self-management of diabetes. Diabet Med. 2013;30(4):413–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.12105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shrivastava SR, Shrivastava PS, Ramasamy J. Role of self-care in management of diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2013;12(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6581-12-14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Beck J, Greenwood DA, Blanton L, Bollinger ST, Butcher MK, Condon JE, et al. 2017 National standards for diabetes self-management education and support. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(10):1409–19. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci17-0025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Horigan G, Davies M, Findlay-White F, Chaney D, Coates V. Reasons why patients referred to diabetes education programmes choose not to attend: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2017;34(1):14–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morgan JM, Mensa-Wilmot Y, Bowen S-A, Murphy M, Bonner T, Rutledge S, et al. Implementing key drivers for diabetes self-management education and support programs: early outcomes, activities, facilitators, and barriers. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15:170399. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.170399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pew Research Center. Mobile fact sheet. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center; 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/. Accessed 26 March 2020.

  7. Pew Research Center. Internet/broadband fact sheet. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center; 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/. Accessed 26 March 2020.

  8. Anderson M. Mobile technology and home broadband 2019: Pew research center; 2019. [09-01-2020]; Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/. Accessed 26 March 2020.

  9. Greenwood DA, Gee PM, Fatkin KJ, Peeples M. A systematic review of reviews evaluating technology-enabled diabetes self-management education and support. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(5):1015–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296817713506.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In: Bemmel J, McCray A, editors. Yearbook of medical informatics 2000: patient-centered systems, vol. 09. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2000. p. 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Green LW, Ottoson JM, Garcia C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:151–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nelson LA, Threatt AL, Martinez W, Acuff SW, Mayberry LS. Agile science: what and how in digital diabetes research. In: Klonoff DC, Kerr D, Mulvaney SA, editors. Digital diabetes research. Cambridge: Elsevier Inc.; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Patrick K, Hekler EB, Estrin D, Mohr DC, Riper H, Crane D, et al. The pace of technologic change: implications for digital health behavior intervention research. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):816–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Glasgow RE, Vinson C, Chambers D, Khoury MJ, Kaplan RM, Hunter C. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1274–81. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300755.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. • Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wienert J. Understanding health information technologies as complex interventions with the need for thorough implementation and monitoring to sustain patient safety. Front ICT. 2019;6:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Murray E, Burns J, May C, Finch T, O’Donnell C, Wallace P, et al. Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2011;6:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015;3:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme (unpublished report). 2006; University of Lancaster: Institute of Health Research.

  20. Abidi S, Vallis M, Piccinini-Vallis H, Imran SA, Abidi SSR. Diabetes-related behavior change knowledge transfer to primary care practitioners and patients: implementation and evaluation of a digital health platform. JMIR Med Inform. 2018;6(2):e25. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.9629.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ayre J, Bonner C, Bramwell S, McClelland S, Jayaballa R, Maberly G, et al. Factors for supporting primary care physician engagement with patient apps for type 2 diabetes self-management that link to primary care: interview study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(1):e11885. https://doi.org/10.2196/11885.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bolin JN, Ory MG, Wilson AD, Salge L. Diabetes education kiosks in a latino community. Diabetes Educ. 2013;39(2):204–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721713476346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cooper H, Lancaster GA, Gichuru P, Peak M. A mixed methods study to evaluate the feasibility of using the Adolescent Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool App in paediatric diabetes care in preparation for a longitudinal cohort study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018;4:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-017-0164-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dickinson WP, Dickinson LM, Jortberg BT, Hessler DM, Fernald DH, Cuffney M, et al. A cluster randomized trial comparing strategies for translating self-management support into primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Med. 2019;32(3):341–52. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2019.03.180254.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. • Levy NK, Orzeck-Byrnes NA, Aidasani SR, Moloney DN, Nguyen LH, Park A, et al. Transition of a text-based insulin titration program from a randomized controlled trial into real-world settings: implementation study. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3):e93. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9515.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Oberg U, Orre CJ, Isaksson U, Schimmer R, Larsson H, Hornsten A. Swedish primary healthcare nurses’ perceptions of using digital eHealth services in support of patient self-management. Scand J Caring Sci. 2018;32(2):961–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Okazaki S, Castañeda JA, Sanz S, Henseler J. Factors affecting mobile diabetes monitoring adoption among physicians: questionnaire study and path model. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6):e183. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2159.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Rogers E, Aidasani SR, Friedes R, Hu L, Langford AT, Moloney DN, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a mobile insulin titration intervention for patients with uncontrolled diabetes: a qualitative analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(7):e13906. https://doi.org/10.2196/13906.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ross J, Stevenson F, Dack C, Pal K, May C, Michie S, et al. Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):794. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3615-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Watterson JL, Rodriguez HP, Shortell SM, Aguilera A. Improved diabetes care management through a text-message intervention for low-income patients: mixed-methods pilot study. JMIR Diabetes. 2018;3(4):e15. https://doi.org/10.2196/diabetes.8645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: Normalization Process Theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:64. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC taxonomy. 2015 [08-05-2020]; Available from: https://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy. Accessed 26 March 2020.

  39. Baskerville NB, Liddy C, Hogg W. Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(1):63–74. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1312.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Nelson LA, Spieker A, Greevy R, LeStourgeon LM, Wallston KA, Mayberry LS. User engagement among diverse adults in a 12-month text message-delivered diabetes support intervention: results from a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(7):e17534. https://doi.org/10.2196/17534.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Haider R, Sudini L, Chow CK, Cheung NW. Mobile phone text messaging in improving glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;150:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2019.02.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. May CR, Cummings A, Girling M, Bracher M, Mair FS, May CM, et al. Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Palermo TM, de la Vega R, Dudeney J, Murray C, Law E. Mobile health intervention for self-management of adolescent chronic pain (WebMAP mobile): protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;74:55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2018.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoshida Y, Patil SJ, Brownson RC, Boren SA, Kim M, Dobson R, et al. Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate internal and external validity of mobile phone-based interventions in diabetes self-management education and support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(6):946–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa041.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Granja C, Janssen W, Johansen MA. Factors determining the success and failure of eHealth interventions: systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(5):e10235. https://doi.org/10.2196/10235.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Alvarado MM, Kum HC, Gonzalez Coronado K, Foster MJ, Ortega P, Lawley MA. Barriers to remote health interventions for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and proposed classification scheme. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(2):e28. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6382.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Murray E, Ross J, Pal K, Li J, Dack C, Stevenson F, et al. A web-based self-management programme for people with type 2 diabetes: the HeLP-Diabetes research programme including RCT. Programme Grants Appl Res. 2018;6(5). https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar06050.

  48. Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, et al. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(2):177–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, et al. An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Mercer SL, DeVinney BJ, Fine LJ, Green LW, Dougherty D. Study designs for effectiveness and translation research :identifying trade-offs. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(2):139–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K12HL137943 and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers K23DK106511 and R18DK123373. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

The authors thank Drs. Sunil Kripalani and Kenneth Wallston for their valuable feedback on the manuscript and Camille Ivey with the Vanderbilt Eskind Biomedical Library for assisting with the literature search.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyndsay A. Nelson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Psychosocial Aspects

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nelson, L.A., Williamson, S.E., Nigg, A. et al. Implementation of Technology-Delivered Diabetes Self-care Interventions in Clinical Care: a Narrative Review. Curr Diab Rep 20, 71 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-020-01356-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-020-01356-2

Keywords

Navigation