胰岛素治疗糖尿病成人使用智能手机应用程序计算碳水化合物与传统碳水化合物计算的准确性和可行性。

IF 3.7 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Mohammad Shehab, Robert M Cohen, Bonnie Brehm, Tamilyn Bakas
{"title":"胰岛素治疗糖尿病成人使用智能手机应用程序计算碳水化合物与传统碳水化合物计算的准确性和可行性。","authors":"Mohammad Shehab, Robert M Cohen, Bonnie Brehm, Tamilyn Bakas","doi":"10.1177/19322968241248606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with insulin-treated diabetes struggle with performing accurate carbohydrate counting for proper blood glucose control. Little is known about the comparative accuracy and feasibility of carbohydrate counting methods.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine whether carbohydrate counting using a smartphone application is more accurate and feasible than a traditional method.Theoretical/conceptual framework:Based on a conceptual model derived from the Technology Acceptance Model, feasibility was defined as usefulness, ease of use, and behavioral intention to use each method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A standardized meal was presented to 20 adults with insulin-treated diabetes who counted carbohydrates using traditional and smartphone methods. Accuracy was measured by comparing carbohydrate counting estimates with the standardized meal values. Perceived feasibility (usefulness, ease of use, behavioral intention) was measured using rating forms derived from the Technology Acceptance Model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of training and estimation minutes were significantly higher for the traditional method than the smartphone method (<i>Z</i> = -3.83, <i>P</i> < .05; <i>Z</i> = -2.30, <i>P</i> < .05). The traditional method took an additional 1.4 minutes for estimation and 12.5 minutes for training. There were no significant differences in accuracy between traditional and smartphone methods for carbohydrate counting (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, <i>Z</i> = -1.10, <i>P</i> = .28). There were no significant differences between traditional and smartphone methods for feasibility (usefulness, <i>Z</i> = -.10, <i>P</i> = .95; ease of use, <i>Z</i> = -.36, <i>P</i> = .72; or behavioral intention, <i>Z</i> = -.94, <i>P</i> = .35).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While both traditional and smartphone methods were found to be similar in terms of accuracy and feasibility, the smartphone method took less time for training and for carbohydrate estimation.</p>","PeriodicalId":15475,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":"1302-1309"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571717/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy and Feasibility of Using a Smartphone Application for Carbohydrate Counting Versus Traditional Carbohydrate Counting for Adults With Insulin-Treated Diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Shehab, Robert M Cohen, Bonnie Brehm, Tamilyn Bakas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19322968241248606\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with insulin-treated diabetes struggle with performing accurate carbohydrate counting for proper blood glucose control. Little is known about the comparative accuracy and feasibility of carbohydrate counting methods.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine whether carbohydrate counting using a smartphone application is more accurate and feasible than a traditional method.Theoretical/conceptual framework:Based on a conceptual model derived from the Technology Acceptance Model, feasibility was defined as usefulness, ease of use, and behavioral intention to use each method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A standardized meal was presented to 20 adults with insulin-treated diabetes who counted carbohydrates using traditional and smartphone methods. Accuracy was measured by comparing carbohydrate counting estimates with the standardized meal values. Perceived feasibility (usefulness, ease of use, behavioral intention) was measured using rating forms derived from the Technology Acceptance Model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of training and estimation minutes were significantly higher for the traditional method than the smartphone method (<i>Z</i> = -3.83, <i>P</i> < .05; <i>Z</i> = -2.30, <i>P</i> < .05). The traditional method took an additional 1.4 minutes for estimation and 12.5 minutes for training. There were no significant differences in accuracy between traditional and smartphone methods for carbohydrate counting (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, <i>Z</i> = -1.10, <i>P</i> = .28). There were no significant differences between traditional and smartphone methods for feasibility (usefulness, <i>Z</i> = -.10, <i>P</i> = .95; ease of use, <i>Z</i> = -.36, <i>P</i> = .72; or behavioral intention, <i>Z</i> = -.94, <i>P</i> = .35).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While both traditional and smartphone methods were found to be similar in terms of accuracy and feasibility, the smartphone method took less time for training and for carbohydrate estimation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15475,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1302-1309\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571717/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968241248606\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968241248606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:接受胰岛素治疗的糖尿病患者在进行准确的碳水化合物计算以适当控制血糖方面存在困难。目的:本研究旨在确定使用智能手机应用程序进行碳水化合物计算是否比传统方法更准确、更可行:理论/概念框架:基于技术接受模型衍生出的概念模型,可行性被定义为每种方法的实用性、易用性和使用行为意向:为 20 名接受胰岛素治疗的成人糖尿病患者提供了一份标准化膳食,他们使用传统方法和智能手机方法计算碳水化合物。通过比较碳水化合物计数估算值和标准膳食值来衡量准确性。根据技术接受模型得出的评分表对感知可行性(有用性、易用性、行为意向)进行了测量:结果:传统方法的培训时间和估算时间明显高于智能手机方法(Z = -3.83,P < .05;Z = -2.30,P < .05)。传统方法的估算时间增加了 1.4 分钟,训练时间增加了 12.5 分钟。传统方法和智能手机方法计算碳水化合物的准确性没有明显差异(Wilcoxon 符号秩检验,Z = -1.10, P = .28)。传统方法和智能手机方法在可行性(有用性,Z = -.10,P = .95;易用性,Z = -.36,P = .72;或行为意向,Z = -.94,P = .35)方面没有明显差异:结论:虽然传统方法和智能手机方法在准确性和可行性方面相似,但智能手机方法所需的培训时间和估算碳水化合物的时间更短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy and Feasibility of Using a Smartphone Application for Carbohydrate Counting Versus Traditional Carbohydrate Counting for Adults With Insulin-Treated Diabetes.

Background: Patients with insulin-treated diabetes struggle with performing accurate carbohydrate counting for proper blood glucose control. Little is known about the comparative accuracy and feasibility of carbohydrate counting methods.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether carbohydrate counting using a smartphone application is more accurate and feasible than a traditional method.Theoretical/conceptual framework:Based on a conceptual model derived from the Technology Acceptance Model, feasibility was defined as usefulness, ease of use, and behavioral intention to use each method.

Methods: A standardized meal was presented to 20 adults with insulin-treated diabetes who counted carbohydrates using traditional and smartphone methods. Accuracy was measured by comparing carbohydrate counting estimates with the standardized meal values. Perceived feasibility (usefulness, ease of use, behavioral intention) was measured using rating forms derived from the Technology Acceptance Model.

Results: The number of training and estimation minutes were significantly higher for the traditional method than the smartphone method (Z = -3.83, P < .05; Z = -2.30, P < .05). The traditional method took an additional 1.4 minutes for estimation and 12.5 minutes for training. There were no significant differences in accuracy between traditional and smartphone methods for carbohydrate counting (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Z = -1.10, P = .28). There were no significant differences between traditional and smartphone methods for feasibility (usefulness, Z = -.10, P = .95; ease of use, Z = -.36, P = .72; or behavioral intention, Z = -.94, P = .35).

Conclusion: While both traditional and smartphone methods were found to be similar in terms of accuracy and feasibility, the smartphone method took less time for training and for carbohydrate estimation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
12.00%
发文量
148
期刊介绍: The Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (JDST) is a bi-monthly, peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Diabetes Technology Society. JDST covers scientific and clinical aspects of diabetes technology including glucose monitoring, insulin and metabolic peptide delivery, the artificial pancreas, digital health, precision medicine, social media, cybersecurity, software for modeling, physiologic monitoring, technology for managing obesity, and diagnostic tests of glycation. The journal also covers the development and use of mobile applications and wireless communication, as well as bioengineered tools such as MEMS, new biomaterials, and nanotechnology to develop new sensors. Articles in JDST cover both basic research and clinical applications of technologies being developed to help people with diabetes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信