An International, Mixed-Methods Study of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Remote Digital Diabetes Monitoring

Theodora Oikonomidi, Philippe Ravaud, Arthur James, Emmanuel Cosson, Victor Montori, Viet Thi Tran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To assess the relationship between remote digital monitoring (RDM) modalities for diabetes and intrusiveness in patients’ lives. Patients and Methods: Online vignette-based survey (February 1 through July 1, 2019). Adults with diabetes (type 1, 2, or subtypes such as latent autoimmune diabetes of adulthood) assessed three randomly selected vignettes among 36 that combined different modalities for monitoring tools (three options: glucose- and physical activity [PA]–monitoring only, or glucose- and PA-monitoring with occasional or regular food monitoring), duration/feedback loops (six options: monitoring for a week before all vs before specific consultations with feedback given in consultation, vs monitoring permanently, with real-time feedback by one's physician vs by anoter caregiver, vs monitoring permanently, with real-time, artificial intelligence-generated treatment feedback vs treatment and lifestyle feedback), and data handling (two options: by the public vs private sector). We compared intrusiveness (assessed on a 5-point scale) across vignettes and used linear mixed models to identify intrusiveness determinants. We collected qualitative data to identify aspects that drove participants’ perception of intrusiveness. Results: Overall, 1010 participants from 30 countries provided 2860 vignette-assessments (52% were type 1 diabetes). The monitoring modalities associated with increased intrusiveness were food monitoring compared with glucose- and PA-monitoring alone (β=0.34; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.42; P<.001) and permanent monitoring with real-time physician-generated feedback compared with monitoring for a week with feedback in consultation (β=0.25; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.34, P<.001). Public-sector data handling was associated with decreased intrusiveness as compared with private-sector (β=−0.15; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.09; P<.001). Four drivers of intrusiveness emerged from the qualitative analysis: practical/psychosocial burden (eg, RDM attracting attention in public), control, data safety/misuse, and dehumanization of care. Conclusion: RDM is intrusive when it includes food monitoring, real-time human feedback, and private-sector data handling.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalMayo Clinic proceedings
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'An International, Mixed-Methods Study of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Remote Digital Diabetes Monitoring'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this