Published on in Vol 8, No 9 (2020): September

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at, first published .
Effect of Voluntary Participation on Mobile Health Care in Diabetes Management: Randomized Controlled Open-Label Trial

Effect of Voluntary Participation on Mobile Health Care in Diabetes Management: Randomized Controlled Open-Label Trial

Effect of Voluntary Participation on Mobile Health Care in Diabetes Management: Randomized Controlled Open-Label Trial

Original Paper

1Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

2Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

3National Health Insurance Service, Wonju-Si, Republic of Korea

4Huraypositive Inc, Seoul, Republic of Korea

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Cheol-Young Park, PhD

Kangbuk Samsung Hospital

Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine

29 Saemunan-ro, Jongno-gu

Seoul, 03181

Republic of Korea

Phone: 82 220011869


Background: The role of mobile health care (mHealth) in glycemic control has been investigated, but its impact on self-management skills and its psychological aspects have not been studied.

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of mHealth-based diabetes self-management education and the effect of voluntary participation on its effects.

Methods: This study was a randomized controlled open-label trial conducted for 6 months at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital. Participants in the control group (n=31) maintained their previous diabetes management strategies. Participants in the intervention group (n=41) additionally received mHealth-based diabetes self-management education through a mobile app and regular individualized feedback from health care professionals. The primary outcome was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level over 6 months between the 2 groups (intervention versus control) and within each group (at 6 months versus baseline). The secondary outcomes were changes in body mass index, blood pressure, lipid profile, and questionnaire scores (the Korean version of the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Questionnaire, an Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life, the Appraisal of Diabetes Scale, and Problem Areas in Diabetes) over 6 months between groups and within each group.

Results: A total of 66 participants completed this study. HbA1c (P=.04), total cholesterol level (P=.04), and Problem Areas in Diabetes scores (P=.02) significantly decreased; total diet (P=.03) and self-monitoring of blood glucose level scores (P=.01), based on the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Questionnaire, markedly increased within the intervention group. These significant changes were observed in self-motivated participants who were recruited voluntarily via advertisements.

Conclusions: mHealth-based diabetes self-management education was effective at improving glycemic control and diabetes self-management skills and lowering diabetes-related distress in voluntary participants.

Trial Registration: NCT03468283;

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(9):e19153



Lifestyle management, including diabetes self-management education, nutrition therapy, and physical activity, is a fundamental aspect of the successful management of diabetes [1,2]. Previous studies [1] have demonstrated that diabetes self-management education improves self-management, diabetes knowledge, satisfaction and quality of life, and glycemic control, and also reduces health care costs. However, only a small number of individuals eligible for diabetes self-management education receive it [3], and poor adherence has been reported [4]. Given that barriers to adherence might include patient factors, a patient-centered approach that would improve self-motivation could be useful.

Mobile health care (mHealth)–based diabetes self-management education has been regarded as an innovative option for diabetes self-management education, in that it may help to overcome time and location barriers and provide real-time individualized medical treatments [5-9]. The effectiveness of mHealth in diabetes management has been demonstrated in a few studies [6,10-13]. However, these previous studies [6,10-13] have mainly focused on the role of self-management education in glycemic control; the impact of mHealth on self-management skills and its psychological aspects have not been studied.

Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate whether implementing mHealth-based diabetes self-management education could improve diabetes self-management and glycemic control and enhance patient quality of life. In addition, we aimed to investigate the importance of voluntary engagement in mHealth-based diabetes self-management education.

Study Participants

Patients with type 2 diabetes from an outpatient clinic at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital were invited to participate via advertisement in Kangbuk Samsung Hospital or via recommendation by their physician between June 2012 and July 2012 (Multimedia Appendix 1). Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥19 years; Android smartphone users; no changes in diabetes medication for at least 6 months; and HbA1c levels ≥6.5% within the last 3 months. We recruited a total of 140 individuals (70 individuals for each group), such that the sample size afforded 80% power at a significance level of α=.05 with a 10% dropout rate, considering a mean difference in HbA1c level of –0.50 based on prior research [5] investigating similar interventions. However, because many participants were excluded because they had an iPhone rather than an Android-based phone or had changed medications within 6 months, only 73 individuals were initially found to be eligible. Among these 73 individuals, 1 participant was excluded. Exclusion criteria were having a serious concomitant disease other than diabetes; a history of malignancy, myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction, or organ transplantation; being pregnant or planning for pregnancy within 6 months; planning to participate in other clinical studies; or illiteracy. Finally, 72 individuals were enrolled in this study.

All participants provided written informed consent before study procedures began. This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of Kangbuk Samsung Hospital (KBS12089) and was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. The trial was registered on February 26, 2018 with (NCT03468283). The CONSORT checklist [14] is available in Multimedia Appendix 2.

Study Design and Details of the Intervention

This study was a randomized controlled open-label trial conducted from June 2012 to March 2013 at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the intervention group or the control group. We used a computer-generated list of random numbers produced by a statistician with no clinical involvement in the trial to allocate the participants. Participants were allocated in the order in which they were registered.

Participants in the intervention group received mHealth-based diabetes self-management education, which consisted of the mobile app Healthynote (for Android; CVnet Co) and regular individualized feedback messages from health care professionals regarding their diabetes management. The intervention group uploaded the Healthynote app onto their own smartphone, were educated on how to use this service, and were provided a near field communication–enabled glucometer (CareSens N NFC; i-SENS Inc). They entered their medical information, such as self-monitored blood glucose level, dietary record, exercise, blood pressure, medication record, and body weight into the app and could check their data at any time by logging into the mobile app and could share it through social network services. The data entered in the app were automatically transmitted by wireless network to the server and stored on a secure website accessible only to providers. During the 6-month study period, participants in the intervention group received regular mobile messages from health care professionals, consisting of 2 endocrinologists and a nurse, via the mobile app once or twice a week. Messages contained general information about diabetes (eg, medications, diet, exercise, treatment goals), diabetes self-care behaviors based on recommendations from the American Diabetes Association [15] and the Korean Diabetes Association [16], encouragement, reminders if the patient had not used the app recently, and individualized advice based on their entered data. Participants could communicate bidirectionally with providers via app messages and call server administrators for technical problems. In the secure website for health care professionals, participant-generated health data were tracked and analyzed for trends and patterns. Using a function for sorting and filtering participants according to transmitted data, usage, and scheduled period, providers sent messages.

Participants in the control group maintained their previous diabetes management at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital. Providers were not involved with patient prescriptions. Among 7 endocrinologists at this center, 2 participated in this study as the principal investigator and co-investigator. Participants were recruited regardless of their endocrinologist. Providers telephoned participants in both groups to discuss research progress. Patients in the study did not have to make additional visits to the hospital beyond regular visits.

To evaluate the impact of self-motivation among our study participants, we divided the intervention group into 2 subgroups for analysis: a group of participants that voluntarily participated in the mobile diabetes self-management education program and joined after seeing an advertisement posted in the hospital (ie, the self-referred group, n=20) and a group who joined based on recommendation by their primary care physician (ie, the physician-referred group, n=19).

Anthropometric and Laboratory Measurements

At baseline, all participants completed a self-administered questionnaire regarding demographic characteristics, social history, and other medical conditions. BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. Blood pressure was measured twice using a standardized sphygmomanometer after 5 minutes of rest, and the lower values were used.

Venous blood samples were collected in the morning (between 8 AM and 9 AM) after an overnight fast of more than 8 hours. Concentrations of plasma glucose (fasting plasma glucose) were determined using the hexokinase method; glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level was determined using turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay; and lipid levels were determined using an enzymatic method and a homogeneous enzymatic calorimetric test. Biochemical values were measured using the Cobas Modular 6000 analyzer series (Roche Diagnostics). Methodology was aligned with Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program standards [17]. The coefficients of variation were 1.94% and 2.2% for HbA1c, 9.57% and 5.39% for cholesterol, and 7.54% and 4.14% for triglyceride level, for normal and abnormal values, respectively.

These variables were tested both at baseline and at 6 months. In addition, blood pressure, weight, lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose level, and HbA1c level were also measured at 3 months.


To assess diabetes self-management, the impact of diabetes on quality of life, diabetes awareness, emotional stress derived from diabetes, and treatment satisfaction, participants answered 5 self-administered questionnaires both at baseline and at 6 months. The Korean version of the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Questionnaire (SDSCA) [18,19], the Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQOL) [20,21], the Korean version of the Appraisal of Diabetes Scale (ADS) [22,23], the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire [24], and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and change version (DTSQc) [25,26] were used.

Statistical Analysis

We conducted a per protocol analysis. The primary outcomes were (1) difference (between the intervention and control groups) in HbA1c levels at 6 months and (2) change (within each group) in HbA1c levels from baseline at 6 months.

Two-tailed independent t tests, paired t tests, and chi-square tests were used to examine differences between the groups.

The comparisons of secondary outcomes—BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, lipid levels, and SDSCA, ADDQOL, ADS, and PAID scores between the 2 groups and within each group—were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and paired t tests. We compared the DTSQ scores of the 2 groups without analyzing longitudinal differences.

Additionally, we repeated the above-mentioned analysis after dividing the participants into control, voluntary, and physician-referred groups.

We calculated ΔHbA1c by subtracting baseline HbA1c level from the HbA1c level measured at 6 months (lower ΔHbA1c indicated better glycemic control). We conducted multivariate linear regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, baseline BMI, systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level to assess the relationship between ΔHbA1c and the total frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose level records, exercise records, diet records, medication records, and message reading rate for 6 months.

SPSS statistical software (version 22.0; IBM Corp) was used. A value of P<.05 was considered statistically significant. Bonferroni correction (for multiple comparisons) was used.

Study Execution and Baseline Characteristics of Participants

Among 72 participants, 66 completed the study (Figure 1); 2 participants from the intervention group and 4 participants from the control group were lost to follow-up.

There were no differences in metabolic parameters at baseline (Multimedia Appendix 3). Diabetes self-management status, especially diet and self-monitored blood glucose level, was superior in the control group.

Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram.
View this figure

Changes in Metabolic Parameters and Questionnaire Scores

Although there was no significant difference between the control and intervention groups at 6 months (HbA1c: P=.05; total cholesterol P=.24), the intervention group showed statistical improvement in HbA1c (P=.04) and total cholesterol levels (P=.04) after 6 months (Multimedia Appendix 4). SDSCA scores, especially total diet (P=.03) and self-monitoring of blood glucose level (P=.01), which were markedly increased compared with baseline, and DTSQ (change) scores at 6 months, which were significantly higher than those of the control group (P=.02). The PAID score significantly decreased during the study period in the intervention group, while there was no change in the control group.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the significant findings observed in the intervention group were concentrated in the self-referred group. Compared to baseline, HbA1c, total cholesterol levels, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, total diet, and self-monitoring of blood glucose level on the SDSCA were only improved in the self-referred group. Compared to the physician-referred group, the self-referred group also had lower total cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, exercise, and smoking scores on the SDSCA at 6 months.

Table 1. Changes in biochemical parameters over 6 months.
ParameterControl (n=27)InterventionP valuea

All (n=39)Physician-referred (n=19)Self-referred (n=20)Physician-referred vs. controlSelf-referred vs. controlPhysician- vs. self-referred
HbA1cb (%)

Baseline7.5 (1.1)7.4 (0.8)7.3 (0.7)7.4 (0.9).65.92.59

3 months7.3 (0.7)7.1 (0.9)7.0 (0.7)7.2 (1.0).54.94.78

6 months7.6 (0.9)7.1 (0.8)7.2 (0.7)7.1 (1.0).13.09.73

P valuec,d.

BMI (kg/m2)

Baseline25.5 (3.0)26.8 (4.2)27.3 (4)26.3 (3.7).24.76.44

6 months25.7 (3.1)27.0 (4.1)27.7 (4.7)26.3 (3.4).09.50.31

P valuec.

Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)

Baseline120.5 (12.0)121.1 (14.1)123.6 (13.5)118.7 (14.5).71.89.28

6 months120.2 (11.0)124.4 (12.0)128.3 (11.6)120.7 (11.4).02.89.05

P valuec.

Total cholesterol (mg/dL)

Baseline150.2 (26.5)148.7 (41.6)156.2 (45.3)141.5 (37.7).85.70.29

6 months149.5 (30.2)139.8 (33.2)153.4 (38.3)128.4 (23.5).71.01.02

P valuec.

Triglyceride level (mg/dL)

Baseline148.2 (67.5)151.0 (113.5)182.6 (143.6)121.1 (65.9).46.61.11

6 months216.9 (206.6)177.9 (116.8)234.8 (146.3)129.6 (49.9).76.07.01

P valuec.

LDL Ce (mg/dL)

Baseline76.4 (18.0)77.5 (25.6)76.0 (23.1)79.0 (28.3).99.93.73

6 months76.1 (18.2)70.9 (20.7)74.7 (24.1)67.6 (17.2).83.11.30

P valuec.

aAn independent t test was used.

bHbA1c: glycated hemoglobin.

cA paired t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.

dP value is for comparison between baseline and 6 months.

eLDL C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Table 2. Changes in the 5 questionnaires over 6 months.
ParameterControl (n=27)InterventionP valuea

All (n=39)Physician-referred (n=19)Self-referred (n=20)Physician-referred vs. controlSelf-referred vs. controlPhysician- vs. self-referred

Total diet

Baseline14.3 (4.4)10.8 (3.9)11.6 (3.0)10.0 (4.4).11<.001.22

6 months14.7 (5.2)12.6 (5.3)11.3 (3.3)13.8 (6.5).01.59.15

P valuec.


Baseline7.2 (3.8)6.0 (3.5)5.4 (3.3)6.6 (3.7).27.84.33

6 months6.2 (4.4)5.2 (3.7)3.8 (2.7)6.5 (4.1).03.84.02

P valuec.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose

Baseline7.1 (4.7)4.1 (4.9)3.8 (5.4)4.4 (4.5).10.19.42

6 months6.7 (4.5)6.6 (4.7)5.1 (4.2)8.0 (4.8).23.36.06

P valuec.


Baseline4.1 (4.0)3.8 (4.3)3.2 (3.8)4.3 (4.7).77.98.44

6 months4.1 (4.0)3.8 (4.3)3.2 (3.8)4.3 (4.7).46.86.43

P valueb>.999.10>.999>.999


Baseline1.0 (2.2)2.1 (3.2)2.8 (3.5)1.5 (2.9).10.83.20

6 months1.7 (3.0)2.1 (3.2)3.2 (3.5)1.1 (2.6).16.41.04

P valuec.


Baseline–3.3 (2.1)–2.5 (1.5)–2.7 (1.6)–2.4 (1.6).54.26.59

6 months–3.2 (1.7)–2.8 (1.4)–2.6 (1.4)–2.9 (1.5).31.59.62

P valuec.

ADSe total

Baseline15.5 (2.7)15.8 (3.0)15.7 (2.0)15.9 (3.7).99.91.82

6 months16.1 (2.4)15.5 (3.2)15.2 (2.7)15.8 (3.6).24.71.58

P valuec.


Baseline50.6 (9.8)49.8 (15.2)49.9 (13.5)49.8 (16.9).98.98.99

6 months47.5 (12.6)44.2 (15.2)42.4 (14.8)45.9 (15.7).22.70.49

P valuec.


Baseline (DTSQs)25.2 (4.7)24.7 (6.1)24.2 (6.5)25.3 (5.8).80.99.59

6 months (DTSQc)9.0 (4.6)12.0 (4.7)11.4 (4.6)12.6 (4.9).10.02.47

aAn independent t test was used.

bSDSCA: Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities.

cA paired t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.

dADDQOL: Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life.

eADS: Appraisal of Diabetes Scale (Korean version).

fPAID: Problem Areas In Diabetes.

gDTSQc: Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Association Between Record Usage and ΔHbA1c

During the 6-month study period, a mean of 8.0 (SD 7.1) records per week of self-monitored blood glucose level, a mean of 0.9 (SD 1.6) records per week of exercise, and a mean of 1.5 (SD 1.6) records per week of diet were uploaded, and the message reading rate was a mean 54.0% (SD 33.4%). Participants in the self-referred group used the mobile app more than those in the physician-referred group (Table 3). In multivariate linear regression analysis, the correlations of self-monitored blood glucose coefficient, exercise record, diet record, and message reading rate with ΔHbA1c were –0.002 (P<.001), –0.008 (P=.08), –0.005 (P=.07), and –0.005 (P=.10), respectively.

Table 3. Mobile app usage and correlation with ΔHbA1c in the intervention group.
FactorsPhysician-referred (n=19)Self-referred (n=20)P valueaStandardized
coefficient (β)
P valueb
Self-monitoring of blood glucose level record (per week)5.3 (5.0)10.6 (8.0).02–0.442.01
Exercise record (per week)0.4 (0.9)1.4 (1.9).04–0.308.08
Diet record (per week)1.3 (1.7)1.7 (1.5).43–0.312.07
Message reading rate46.9 (33.2)61.1 (33.0).19–0.273.10

aAn independent t test was used.

bLinear regression with adjustments for age, sex, and baseline BMI, systolic blood pressure, HbA1c level, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level.

Adverse Events

There were 4 adverse events (2 in the intervention group and 2 in the control group) during the study period: an episode of depression, hospital admission due to aggravation of glycemic control, herpes zoster, and a traffic accident. However, these 4 patients completed the study.

This prospective study showed that mHealth-based diabetes self-management education helps to improve glycemic status and diabetes self-management skills, reduces diabetes-related distress, and provides higher user satisfaction, especially in voluntary participants.

Although over 1100 diabetes-related smartphone apps are currently available [27], and prior studies [6,10-13,28,29] have emphasized their impact on HbA1c, there are limited data available on improving self-care skills or other clinical endpoints in patients with type 2 diabetes [30].

In other chronic diseases such as heart failure, chronic lung disease, or cardiovascular disease, mHealth technologies have demonstrated potential for facilitating adherence to chronic disease management [31], as well as improving lipid levels and weight control [32,33].

While mHealth-based diabetes self-management education provides helpful reminders and behavioral reinforcements for adherence to complex care regimens such as medications, blood glucose level checking, and secondary prevention testing [5], weekly health counseling via app messages provides regular contact with health professionals and could have strengthened self-management and behavior changes [34], in addition to offering emotional support and detailed reflection. The characteristics of this study were in line with the 4 key elements of technology-based diabetes management interventions for HbA1c decrement that were suggested by Greenwood et al [35]: (1) 2-way communication, (2) analysis of patient-generated health data, (3) tailored education, and (4) individualized feedback.

Most clinically meaningful changes observed in the intervention group were seen in the voluntary (active engagement) group (Tables 1 and 2). The proportion of primary care physicians who participated in this study as investigators in the self-referred group (2/20, 10%) was significantly lower (P<.001 from chi-square analysis) than that of the physician-referred group (13/19, 68.4%). This reflects a significantly higher level of self-motivation for diabetes management among participants within the self-referred group. These findings are in line with previous evidence that initial active engagement in self-monitoring with a telemonitoring device contributed to excellent glycemic improvement [36].

After a slight decrement in HbA1c levels over the first 3 months (Table 1), this improvement was maintained only in the self-referred group at 6 months, resulting in a significant decrement versus baseline (P=.04); this phenomenon is referred to as the Hawthorne effect [37]. Significance of the self-referred group (P=.04) was related to the impact of mHealth-based diabetes self-management education. This characteristic is important to understanding who uses apps and what keeps them engaged [38] and can be used to select participants for large-population mHealth services in the future. Advanced model cycling in intensive mHealth-based diabetes self-management education and a self-application period after selecting highly active individuals will be commercially applicable to managing more participants in the future. The degree of improvement in HbA1c was less than that seen for other mHealth models for diabetes [5,6,10-13]. However, as a higher baseline HbA1c level is correlated with a greater decrease in HbA1c in response to various antidiabetes management methods [39], a slight improvement in HbA1c level was predicted in this study, which had a mean baseline HbA1c level of 7.4% (SD 0.8%). In prior studies with a baseline HbA1c level <8.0%, the decrement in HbA1c was approximately 0.4% [6,10].

Frequent app use, especially frequent self-monitored blood glucose level, showed a notable positive impact in our study, as reported in previous studies [40]. Through the ease and accuracy of blood glucose level tracking for patients via a near field communication–enabled glucometer, participants were encouraged to perform more self-monitored blood glucose level. There was also a possible correlation between the number of exercise records and diet records with ΔHba1c, although nonsignificance was indicated (P=.08 and P=.07, respectively; Table 3).

Despite the previously mentioned strengths of this study, several limitations should be considered. First, the number of participants was small, and the researchers were not blinded, given that this study was an open-label study. Second, unlike the selection of the intervention group, the stratification of physician-referred and self-referred groups could not be randomized. The physician-referred and self-referred groups might differ in terms of their familiarity with the use of digital equipment, as participant digital proficiency and comprehension of the mHealth-based diabetes self-management education were not considered at baseline or during the follow-up period. Third, we conducted per-protocol analysis, rather than intention-to-treat analysis. There were no data available after the baseline exam for the 2 participants who declined to participate in intervention group. Because we thought that mHealth-based diabetes self-management education was applied in those participants, we decided to exclude them from analysis. Fourth, this trial was registered at after the end of the study. Finally, although the real comparator between unmotivated and motivated groups would be among people who declined to participate in this study, we have no way of obtaining information about those patients.

In conclusion, this prospective study demonstrated that an mHealth-based diabetes self-management education that supports diabetes self-management through health counseling messages leads to improved glycemic status and diabetes self-management skills, reduced diabetes-related distress, and high user satisfaction. These positive impacts were predominantly observed in participants who engaged in this mobile app in a voluntary manner and in those who utilized the app more frequently.


CVnet Co funded the study, and i-SENS Inc provided glucometers. However, these funders had no role in the design, conduct, or analysis of the trial.

Authors' Contributions

S-HY and C-YP contributed to study design and data analysis. KPM provided technical support for the study and collected data. DYL and S-HY collected and organized data, and wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript. C-YP participated in the analytic discussion of the results, supervised, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

KPM was an employee of CVnet Co during the study and is now an employee of Huraypositive Inc. DYL, S-HY, and C-YP have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Study design.

PNG File , 1374 KB

Multimedia Appendix 2

CONSORT checklist.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 1535 KB

Multimedia Appendix 3

Baseline characteristics and comparisons between the three groups.

DOCX File , 22 KB

Multimedia Appendix 4

Changes in biochemical parameters and six questionnaires in two groups over six months.

DOCX File , 21 KB

  1. American Diabetes Association. 4. Lifestyle Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care 2018 Jan;41(Suppl 1):S38-S50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Kim H, Kim H, Yang H, Lee EY, Jeong YJ, Kim TM, et al. Physician-Directed Diabetes Education without a Medication Change and Associated Patient Outcomes. Diabetes Metab J 2017;41(3):187. [CrossRef]
  3. Li R, Shrestha SS, Lipman R, Burrows NR, Kolb LE, Rutledge S, et al. Diabetes self-management education and training among privately insured persons with newly diagnosed diabetes–United States, 2011-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014 Nov 21;63(46):1045-1049 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  4. Bailey CJ, Kodack M. Patient adherence to medication requirements for therapy of type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pract 2011 Mar;65(3):314-322. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Garabedian LF, Ross-Degnan D, Wharam JF. Mobile Phone and Smartphone Technologies for Diabetes Care and Self-Management. Curr Diab Rep 2015 Dec;15(12):109. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Lim S, Kang SM, Shin H, Lee HJ, Won YJ, Yu SH, et al. Improved glycemic control without hypoglycemia in elderly diabetic patients using the ubiquitous healthcare service, a new medical information system. Diabetes Care 2011 Feb;34(2):308-313 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Lee DY, Park J, Choi D, Ahn H, Park S, Park C. The effectiveness, reproducibility, and durability of tailored mobile coaching on diabetes management in policyholders: A randomized, controlled, open-label study. Sci Rep 2018 Feb 26;8(1):3642 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Lee M, Lee K, Yoo S, Park C. Impact of initial active engagement in self-monitoring with a telemonitoring device on glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Sci Rep 2017 Jun 20;7(1):3866 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Sung J, Lee DY, Min KP, Park C. Peripartum management of gestational diabetes using a digital health care service: a pilot, randomized controlled study. Clin Ther 2019 Nov;41(11):2426-2434. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Waki K, Fujita H, Uchimura Y, Omae K, Aramaki E, Kato S, et al. DialBetics: a novel smartphone-based self-management support system for type 2 diabetes patients. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2014 Mar 13;8(2):209-215 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Kirwan M, Vandelanotte C, Fenning A, Duncan MJ. Diabetes self-management smartphone application for adults with type 1 diabetes: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(11):e235 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Charpentier G, Benhamou P, Dardari D, Clergeot A, Franc S, Schaepelynck-Belicar P, et al. The Diabeo software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support improves HbA1c in poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients: a 6-month, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial (TeleDiab 1 Study). Diabetes Care 2011 Mar;34(3):533-539 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Quinn CC, Shardell MD, Terrin ML, Barr EA, Ballew SH, Gruber-Baldini AL. Cluster-randomized trial of a mobile phone personalized behavioral intervention for blood glucose control. Diabetes Care 2011 Sep;34(9):1934-1942 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Eysenbach G, CONSORT- E. CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of Web-based and mobile health interventions. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e126 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. NGSP. Harmonizing hemoglobin A1c testing. Internet. 2014.   URL: [accessed 2017-05-24] [WebCite Cache]
  16. Ko SH, Hur KY, Rhee SY, Kim NH, Moon MK, Park SO, Committee of Clinical Practice Guideline of Korean Diabetes Association. Antihyperglycemic Agent Therapy for Adult Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus 2017: A Position Statement of the Korean Diabetes Association. Diabetes Metab J 2017 Oct;41(5):337-348 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. NGSP. List of NGSP certified methods. Internet. 2016.   URL: [accessed 2018-07-23]
  18. Toobert DJ, Hampson SE, Glasgow RE. The summary of diabetes self-care activities measure: results from 7 studies and a revised scale. Diabetes Care 2000 Jul;23(7):943-950 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  19. Choi EJ, Nam M, Kim SH, Park CG, Toobert DJ, Yoo JS, et al. Psychometric properties of a Korean version of the summary of diabetes self-care activities measure. Int J Nurs Stud 2011 Mar;48(3):333-337. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Wee H, Tan C, Goh S, Li S. Usefulness of the Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality-of-Life (ADDQoL) questionnaire in patients with diabetes in a multi-ethnic Asian country. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24(7):673-682. [Medline]
  21. Bradley C, Todd C, Gorton T, Symonds E, Martin A, Plowright R. The development of an individualized questionnaire measure of perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: the ADDQoL. Qual Life Res 1999;8(1-2):79-91. [Medline]
  22. Carey MP, Jorgensen RS, Weinstock RS, Sprafkin RP, Lantinga LJ, Carnrike CL, et al. Reliability and validity of the appraisal of diabetes scale. J Behav Med 1991 Feb;14(1):43-51. [Medline]
  23. Lee E, Lee YW, Lee K, Nam M, Kim YS, Han SJ. A Korean version of the Appraisal of Diabetes Scale (ADS-K): psychometric evaluation with a population of Koreans with type 2 diabetes. J Transcult Nurs 2015 May;26(3):270-278. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Welch G, Weinger K, Anderson B, Polonsky WH. Responsiveness of the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire. Diabet Med 2003 Jan;20(1):69-72. [Medline]
  25. Bradley C. The diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire: DTSQ. In: Bradley C. editor. Handbook of psychology and diabetes. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 1994:111-132.
  26. Bradley C. Diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire. Change version for use alongside status version provides appropriate solution where ceiling effects occur. Diabetes Care 1999 Mar;22(3):530-532 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  27. Istepanian R. editor. Mobile applications (Apps) for diabetes management - Challenges and efficacy issues. 75th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association 2015;Boston, MA:A.
  28. Graetz I, Huang J, Muelly ER, Fireman B, Hsu J, Reed ME. Association of Mobile Patient Portal Access With Diabetes Medication Adherence and Glycemic Levels Among Adults With Diabetes. JAMA Netw Open 2020 Feb 05;3(2):e1921429 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Wu X, Guo X, Zhang Z. The Efficacy of Mobile Phone Apps for Lifestyle Modification in Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 Jan 15;7(1):e12297 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Berndt R, Takenga C, Preik P, Kuehn S, Berndt L, Mayer H, et al. Impact of information technology on the therapy of type-1 diabetes: a case study of children and adolescents in Germany. J Pers Med 2014;4(2):200-217. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Sharma A, Mentz RJ, Granger BB, Heitner JF, Cooper LB, Banerjee D, et al. Utilizing mobile technologies to improve physical activity and medication adherence in patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus: Rationale and design of the TARGET-HF-DM Trial. Am Heart J 2019 May;211:22-33. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Chow CK, Redfern J, Hillis GS, Thakkar J, Santo K, Hackett ML, et al. Effect of Lifestyle-Focused Text Messaging on Risk Factor Modification in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2015;314(12):1255-1263. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Thakkar J, Kurup R, Laba T, Santo K, Thiagalingam A, Rodgers A, et al. Mobile Telephone Text Messaging for Medication Adherence in Chronic Disease: A Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2016 Mar;176(3):340-349. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Marcolino MS, Maia JX, Alkmim MBM, Boersma E, Ribeiro AL. Telemedicine application in the care of diabetes patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8(11):e79246 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  35. 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 Sep;11(5):1015-1027. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Lee MJ, Cha J, Choi HA, Woo S, Kim S, Wang S, et al. Blood-brain barrier breakdown in reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: Implications for pathophysiology and diagnosis. Ann Neurol 2017 Mar;81(3):454-466. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2014 Mar;67(3):267-277 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Hood M, Wilson R, Corsica J, Bradley L, Chirinos D, Vivo A. What do we know about mobile applications for diabetes self-management? A review of reviews. J Behav Med 2016 Dec;39(6):981-994. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Ishikawa M, Takai M, Maeda H, Kanamori A, Kubota A, Amemiya H, et al. Factors Predicting Therapeutic Efficacy of Combination Treatment With Sitagliptin and Insulin in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: The ASSIST-K Study. J Clin Med Res 2015 Aug;7(8):607-612 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Knapp S, Manroa P, Doshi K. Self-monitoring of blood glucose: Advice for providers and patients. Cleve Clin J Med 2016 May;83(5):355-360 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

ADDQOL: Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life
ADS: Appraisal of Diabetes Scale
DTSQ: Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire
HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin
mHealth: mobile health care
PAID: Problem Areas in Diabetes
SDSCA: Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities

Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 06.04.20; peer-reviewed by M Peeples, C Reis, C Liao, E Franco; comments to author 28.04.20; revised version received 07.06.20; accepted 11.08.20; published 18.09.20


©Da Young Lee, Seung-Hyun Yoo, Kyong Pil Min, Cheol-Young Park. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (, 18.09.2020.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.