Digital health · 2025
Glucose interpretation meaning and action (GIMA): Insights to blood glucose user interface interpretation in type 1 diabetes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kongdee Rujiravee, Parsia Bijan, Thabit Hood, Harper Simon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current glucose monitoring user interfaces (UIs) are problematic for people with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) in maintaining recommended blood glucose levels effectively. However, there is a lack of in-depth investigation into this problem when these individuals interpret and make real-time decisions based on the glucose monitoring devices they use daily.
OBJECTIVES: We aim to investigate problems associated with glucose monitoring UIs by observing users' interpretation and decision-making while reading their Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM), Flash Glucose Monitoring (Flash) or Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG).
METHODS: A mixed-method study was conducted. The Think Aloud protocol was used to capture participants' decision-making process while reading various device UIs. Their responses were evaluated using standard clinical guidance to assess their accuracy. Additionally, a survey was distributed to gather their perceptions of self-management practices.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants (17 patients and 10 carers) were recruited. Interpretation accuracy averaged 38.0% ± 11.1% for CGM, 39.5% ± 8.8% for Flash, and 33.3% ± 7.8% for SMBG group. Treatment action accuracy was 21.5% ± 15.6% for CGM, 21.2% ± 14.0% for Flash, and 18.0% ± 13.2% for SMBG group. Despite this, 75.0% of all participants expressed very high confidence in their self-management.
CONCLUSIONS: Interpreting and making decisions using glucose monitoring UIs remains significantly challenging for people with T1DM despite their self-perceived performance. Improving such UIs is crucial to reduce misinterpretation and help these individuals make better treatment decisions without relying on their potentially inaccurate interpretations.
OBJECTIVES: We aim to investigate problems associated with glucose monitoring UIs by observing users' interpretation and decision-making while reading their Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM), Flash Glucose Monitoring (Flash) or Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG).
METHODS: A mixed-method study was conducted. The Think Aloud protocol was used to capture participants' decision-making process while reading various device UIs. Their responses were evaluated using standard clinical guidance to assess their accuracy. Additionally, a survey was distributed to gather their perceptions of self-management practices.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants (17 patients and 10 carers) were recruited. Interpretation accuracy averaged 38.0% ± 11.1% for CGM, 39.5% ± 8.8% for Flash, and 33.3% ± 7.8% for SMBG group. Treatment action accuracy was 21.5% ± 15.6% for CGM, 21.2% ± 14.0% for Flash, and 18.0% ± 13.2% for SMBG group. Despite this, 75.0% of all participants expressed very high confidence in their self-management.
CONCLUSIONS: Interpreting and making decisions using glucose monitoring UIs remains significantly challenging for people with T1DM despite their self-perceived performance. Improving such UIs is crucial to reduce misinterpretation and help these individuals make better treatment decisions without relying on their potentially inaccurate interpretations.