Evaluating the impact of mobile telephone technology on type 2 diabetic patients’ self-management: the NICHE pilot study
Version of Record online: 26 MAR 2008
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume 14, Issue 3, pages 465–469, June 2008
How to Cite
Faridi, Z., Liberti, L., Shuval, K., Northrup, V., Ali, A. and Katz, D. L. (2008), Evaluating the impact of mobile telephone technology on type 2 diabetic patients’ self-management: the NICHE pilot study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14: 465–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00881.x
- Issue online: 26 MAR 2008
- Version of Record online: 26 MAR 2008
- Accepted for publication: 19 March 2007
- mobile phone technology;
- pilot trial;
Rationale, aims and objectives Utilizing information technology, such as Internet and cellphones, holds great promise in enhancing diabetic care. Yet few studies have examined the impact of cellphone technology on type 2 diabetics’ self-care. The primary aim of the study is to examine the feasibility of utilizing this technology to assist with diabetes self-care in a clinic population as well as its impact on clinical outcomes.
Methods Thirty patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes at two Community Health Centers were randomized to intervention or control. Intervention patients participated in a brief intervention and received tailored daily messages via cellphone prompting them to enhance their diabetic self-care behaviour. Patients at the control site continued with their standard diabetes self-management.
Results A mean improvement in HbA1c levels was apparent (−0.1, SD = 0.3%; P = 0.1534) in the intervention group, compared with a mean deterioration in the control (0.3, SD = 1.0%; P = 0.3813), yet without statistical significance. Self-efficacy scores improved significantly in the intervention group (−0.5, SD = 0.6; P = 0.0080) compared with no improvement in the control (0.0, SD = 1.0; P = 0.9060). Participants encountered numerous technological barriers when attempting to adhere to the intervention protocol.
Conclusion The results indicate the intervention had a positive impact on some clinical outcome and self-efficacy. Although the technology appears feasible in a clinical setting technology must be made more user-friendly before a larger phase II trial is conducted.