评估糖尿病的数字健康解决方案和患者报告结果的作用:目标文献综述

IF 2.6 Q2 Medicine
JMIR Diabetes Pub Date : 2025-06-04 DOI:10.2196/52909
Paco Cerletti, Michael Joubert, Nick Oliver, Saira Ghafur, Pasquale Varriale, Ophélie Wilczynski, Marlene Gyldmark
{"title":"评估糖尿病的数字健康解决方案和患者报告结果的作用:目标文献综述","authors":"Paco Cerletti, Michael Joubert, Nick Oliver, Saira Ghafur, Pasquale Varriale, Ophélie Wilczynski, Marlene Gyldmark","doi":"10.2196/52909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital health solutions (DHS) are technologies with the potential to improve patient outcomes as well as change the way care is delivered. The value of DHS for people with diabetes is not well understood, nor is it clear how to quantify this value.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to summarize current literature on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in diabetes as well as in selected guidelines for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of DHS to highlight gaps, needs, and opportunities for the use of PROMs to evaluate DHS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to establish which PROMs were most used in diabetes clinical trials and research between 1995 and May 2024. HTA guidelines on DHS evaluation from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom were also assessed to identify PROMs for DHS evaluation in general.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 46 diabetes-specific PROMs and 16 nondiabetes-specific PROMs were identified. The most used diabetes-specific PROMs were (1) Diabetes Distress Scale, (2) Problem Areas in Diabetes, (3) Diabetes Empowerment Scale, (4) Diabetes Quality of Life, and (5) Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. The most used nondiabetes-specific PROMs were Beck Depression Inventory, Sickness Impact Profile, EuroQol 5-Dimension, and Short Form 36-Item Health Survey. In HTA guidelines, the most prominent domain was health-related quality of life, for whose assessment there are well-established measures (Short Form 36-Item Health Survey and EuroQol 5-Dimension).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Of the many PROMs used in diabetes care, few are currently used to evaluate DHS, and certain domains of value in diabetes are not mentioned in HTA guidelines. A common, comprehensive DHS-specific HTA framework could facilitate and accelerate the evaluation of DHS.</p>","PeriodicalId":52371,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Diabetes","volume":"10 ","pages":"e52909"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12158397/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Digital Health Solutions in Diabetes and the Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes: Targeted Literature Review.\",\"authors\":\"Paco Cerletti, Michael Joubert, Nick Oliver, Saira Ghafur, Pasquale Varriale, Ophélie Wilczynski, Marlene Gyldmark\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/52909\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital health solutions (DHS) are technologies with the potential to improve patient outcomes as well as change the way care is delivered. The value of DHS for people with diabetes is not well understood, nor is it clear how to quantify this value.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to summarize current literature on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in diabetes as well as in selected guidelines for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of DHS to highlight gaps, needs, and opportunities for the use of PROMs to evaluate DHS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to establish which PROMs were most used in diabetes clinical trials and research between 1995 and May 2024. HTA guidelines on DHS evaluation from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom were also assessed to identify PROMs for DHS evaluation in general.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 46 diabetes-specific PROMs and 16 nondiabetes-specific PROMs were identified. The most used diabetes-specific PROMs were (1) Diabetes Distress Scale, (2) Problem Areas in Diabetes, (3) Diabetes Empowerment Scale, (4) Diabetes Quality of Life, and (5) Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. The most used nondiabetes-specific PROMs were Beck Depression Inventory, Sickness Impact Profile, EuroQol 5-Dimension, and Short Form 36-Item Health Survey. In HTA guidelines, the most prominent domain was health-related quality of life, for whose assessment there are well-established measures (Short Form 36-Item Health Survey and EuroQol 5-Dimension).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Of the many PROMs used in diabetes care, few are currently used to evaluate DHS, and certain domains of value in diabetes are not mentioned in HTA guidelines. A common, comprehensive DHS-specific HTA framework could facilitate and accelerate the evaluation of DHS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Diabetes\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"e52909\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12158397/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Diabetes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/52909\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/52909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:数字健康解决方案(DHS)是一种有可能改善患者治疗结果并改变提供护理方式的技术。DHS对糖尿病患者的价值尚不清楚,也不清楚如何量化这一价值。目的:我们旨在总结目前关于糖尿病患者报告结果测量(PROMs)使用的文献,以及DHS卫生技术评估(HTA)的选定指南,以突出使用PROMs评估DHS的差距、需求和机会。方法:检索PubMed和ClinicalTrials.gov,以确定1995年至2024年5月期间糖尿病临床试验和研究中使用最多的prom。还对来自法国、德国和英国的HTA国土安全评估指南进行了评估,以确定一般国土安全评估的PROMs。结果:共鉴定出46例糖尿病特异性prom和16例非糖尿病特异性prom。最常用的糖尿病特异性PROMs是(1)糖尿病困扰量表、(2)糖尿病问题领域量表、(3)糖尿病授权量表、(4)糖尿病生活质量量表和(5)糖尿病治疗满意度问卷。最常用的非糖尿病特异性PROMs是贝克抑郁量表、疾病影响量表、EuroQol 5维量表和36项健康调查简表。在卫生保健协会的指导方针中,最突出的领域是与健康有关的生活质量,对其进行评估有完善的措施(36项健康调查简表和欧洲质量标准5维度)。结论:在糖尿病护理中使用的许多PROMs中,目前很少用于评估DHS,并且HTA指南中没有提到糖尿病的某些价值领域。一个共同的、全面的国土安全部特定的HTA框架可以促进和加速国土安全部的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Digital Health Solutions in Diabetes and the Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes: Targeted Literature Review.

Background: Digital health solutions (DHS) are technologies with the potential to improve patient outcomes as well as change the way care is delivered. The value of DHS for people with diabetes is not well understood, nor is it clear how to quantify this value.

Objective: We aimed to summarize current literature on the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in diabetes as well as in selected guidelines for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of DHS to highlight gaps, needs, and opportunities for the use of PROMs to evaluate DHS.

Methods: We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to establish which PROMs were most used in diabetes clinical trials and research between 1995 and May 2024. HTA guidelines on DHS evaluation from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom were also assessed to identify PROMs for DHS evaluation in general.

Results: A total of 46 diabetes-specific PROMs and 16 nondiabetes-specific PROMs were identified. The most used diabetes-specific PROMs were (1) Diabetes Distress Scale, (2) Problem Areas in Diabetes, (3) Diabetes Empowerment Scale, (4) Diabetes Quality of Life, and (5) Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. The most used nondiabetes-specific PROMs were Beck Depression Inventory, Sickness Impact Profile, EuroQol 5-Dimension, and Short Form 36-Item Health Survey. In HTA guidelines, the most prominent domain was health-related quality of life, for whose assessment there are well-established measures (Short Form 36-Item Health Survey and EuroQol 5-Dimension).

Conclusions: Of the many PROMs used in diabetes care, few are currently used to evaluate DHS, and certain domains of value in diabetes are not mentioned in HTA guidelines. A common, comprehensive DHS-specific HTA framework could facilitate and accelerate the evaluation of DHS.

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
JMIR Diabetes
JMIR Diabetes Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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