This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Digital Health Reviews (1271) Telehealth and Telemonitoring (1664) Diabetes (186) Diabetes Reviews and Scoping Studies (31) Sensors for Glucose Monitoring and Diabetes Management (32) Supporting Informal Care and Caregivers (290)

Published on in Vol 25 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/46988, first published .
Role of Caregivers in Remote Management of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review of Literature

Role of Caregivers in Remote Management of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review of Literature

Role of Caregivers in Remote Management of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review of Literature

Authors of this article:

Jun Jie Benjamin Seng1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Meng Ferng Ryan Gwee3 Author Orcid Image ;   Mei Hui Amanda Yong4 Author Orcid Image ;   Yu Heng Kwan1, 2, 5, 6 Author Orcid Image ;   Julian Thumboo2, 6, 7 Author Orcid Image ;   Lian Leng Low2, 8, 9 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (2) Tweetations (3) Metrics

    Review

    1MOH Holding Private Limited, Singapore, Singapore

    2SingHealth Regional Health System PULSES Centre, Singapore Health Services, Singapore, Singapore

    3Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore

    4Department of Pharmacy, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    5Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    6Program in Health Services and Systems Research, Singapore, Singapore

    7Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    8Department of Family Medicine and Continuing Care, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    9Outram Community Hospital, SingHealth Community Hospitals, Singapore, Singapore

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Lian Leng Low, MD, MMed

    SingHealth Regional Health System PULSES Centre

    Singapore Health Services

    1 Hospital Drive

    Singapore, 169608

    Singapore

    Phone: 65 6222 3322

    Email: low.lian.leng@singhealth.com.sg


    Background: With the growing use of remote monitoring technologies in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), caregivers are becoming important resources that can be tapped into to improve patient care.

    Objective: This review aims to summarize the role of caregivers in the remote monitoring of patients with T2DM.

    Methods: We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science up to 2022. Studies that evaluated the role of caregivers in remote management of adult patients with T2DM were included. Outcomes such as diabetes control, adherence to medication, quality of life, frequency of home glucose monitoring, and health care use were evaluated.

    Results: Of the 1198 identified citations, 11 articles were included. The majority of studies were conducted in North America (7/11, 64%) and South America (2/11, 18%). The main types of caregivers studied were family or friends (10/11, 91%), while the most common remote monitoring modalities evaluated were interactive voice response (5/11, 45%) and phone consultations (4/11, 36%). With regard to diabetes control, 3 of 6 studies showed improvement in diabetes-related laboratory parameters. A total of 2 studies showed improvements in patients’ medication adherence rates and frequency of home glucose monitoring. Studies that evaluated patients’ quality of life showed mixed evidence. In 1 study, increased hospitalization rates were noted in the intervention group.

    Conclusions: Caregivers may play a role in improving clinical outcomes among patients with T2DM under remote monitoring. Studies on mobile health technologies are lacking to understand their impact on Asian populations and long-term patient outcomes.

    J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e46988

    doi:10.2196/46988

    Keywords

    care; caregiver; diabetes; glucose monitoring; glucose; medication; mHealth; monitoring; patient care; quality of life; remote management; remote monitoring; systematic review; telehealth; telemedicine; type 2 diabetes mellitus; utilization 


    Remote management of patients refers to the use of digital technology for capturing a patient’s health-related data in real time, which is in turn transmitted and delivered to a health care professional to facilitate the management of a person’s medical condition [1]. The use of remote monitoring technologies for the delivery of patient care and health care services has gained popularity among policy administrators and health care professionals in the past few years [2]. These technologies offer a wide range of advantages, ranging from facilitating real-time assessment of patient outcome measures to reducing the number of hospital clinic visits, which reduces the burden on health care facilities [2]. In addition, they permit efficient delivery of patient care to patients residing in rural communities [3]. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the development and uptake of remote patient monitoring and telehealth technologies have been greatly accelerated [4]. Notably, the number of remote consultations has increased at least 50-fold compared to prepandemic times [5], while the market for telehealth has been estimated to exceed US $250 billion in the United States [6].

    Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the leading metabolic diseases worldwide and afflicts nearly 500 million patients. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality [7,8]. Health care expenditures from T2DM care and its associated complications amounted to over US $700 billion in 2017 and are expected to continue rising [7]. Given that achieving good diabetes control and regular self-monitoring of T2DM are paramount to slowing T2DM progression and reducing one’s risk of developing T2DM-related complications, it is unsurprising that research and development in diabetes-related remote monitoring technologies has been ramping up [9]. Various wearable and mobile technologies have been developed to target the wide range of laboratory and physical parameters, such as glucose levels, physical activity levels, and body weight, that are routinely assessed in diabetes care. For example, continuous wearable glucose monitors and insulin pumps have been developed to facilitate ease of monitoring and administration of insulin among patients with diabetes [10]. Technological advances have also led to increased functionality of smartphones, where inbuilt sensors such as the accelerometer, heart rate monitor, and gyroscope allow for assessment of physical activity level and caloric expenditure estimation [11].

    Overall, remote monitoring technologies have demonstrated promising results among patients with T2DM. A recent review by Kitsiou et al [12] found that the use of mobile health technologies (mHealth) improved hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by 0.8% among patients with T2DM. Another systematic review that examined the use of web-based remote monitoring systems showed similar improvements in glycemic control in patients with T2DM [13]. Despite the potential benefits of remote patient monitoring, the real-world adoption of these related technologies has lagged due to patients’ perceived barriers [14]. In a study by Foong et al [15] that evaluated themes affecting uptake of digital technology for diabetes-related foot ulcers, common barriers identified included knowledge-related barriers such as lack of technological savviness and physical limitations, for example, difficulty with reading on a smartphone, lack of dexterity with manipulation of devices, and the need for an assistant to take photos [15]. The use of other remote monitoring technologies and devices is likely to encounter similar barriers and would require regular education and training [10]. Caregivers could aid in filling these gaps to support and facilitate adherence to the usage of such technologies, especially among older people who may be less technologically literate. A qualitative study that evaluated the role of family caregivers in diabetes care found that family support played an important role in supporting patients’ use of health information technologies and patient web portals [16]. Another study that evaluated a combined program involving telemonitoring and informal caregiver involvement among patients with T2DM showed a significant improvement in patients’ adherence to medication, foot examinations, and regular glucose monitoring [17].

    To the best of our knowledge, no review has been undertaken to evaluate the role of caregivers in remote monitoring of patients with T2DM. The reviews available in the literature have only evaluated outcomes associated with remote patient monitoring [18,19], telehealth tools and interventions to support family caregivers in patient care [20], and caregivers’ experiences with remote monitoring technologies [21] in other patient populations, such as patients with dementia or hypertension. Within patients with T2DM, the existing literature is limited to reviews that examined barriers affecting uptake of remote monitoring technologies [22], outcomes associated with remote monitoring technologies [23], and caregivers and patients’ perspectives toward remote monitoring technologies [24]. As such, the objective of this study was to evaluate and summarize the role of caregivers in the remote management of patients with T2DM.


    Protocol and Registration

    The protocol for this review was registered on the Open Science Framework (JCWTD) and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

    Information Sources and Search Strategy

    We conducted a systematic review in 5 major literature databases, which included MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. No restriction was imposed on the start date of the search, and the review was current as of February 28, 2022. The search strategy used key terminologies related to T2DM, caregivers or caregiving, and remote management of patients (Multimedia Appendix 1 [17,25-34]). The search terms used were adapted from systematic reviews that evaluated remote management or caregiving in other patient populations [23,35-37].

    Definitions

    Caregivers

    For this review, 4 main categories of caregivers, which included informal, volunteer, professional, and independent or private caregivers, were evaluated [38]. Informal caregivers are family members or friends who provide typically unpaid care to a patient with whom they have a personal relationship [39]. Professional caregivers typically work for an agency and provide home- or facility-based medical or nonmedical care, while independent or private caregivers are typically hired directly by the patient’s family to provide medical or nonmedical care [38].

    Remote Monitoring Technologies

    Remote monitoring technologies typically comprise of three key elements: (1) electronic transmission of health-related information, for example, blood pressure or self-reported measures, across 2 different geographical locations; (2) use of electronic devices in a patient’s home, mobile devices on patients (eg, computers and handphones); and (3) feedback from a health care professional who provides tailored advice to the patient or automated feedback delivered based on a predefined algorithm [40]. Examples of these technologies may include telephone consultations and video conferencing, as well as the use of digital devices and wearables, for example, smartwatches, and electronic networks for the delivery of health services or information [1,41].

    Eligibility Criteria and Selection Process

    We included full-text articles in English that assessed the role of caregivers or caregiving in remote management of patients with T2DM. Using the “patient, intervention, comparator, and outcomes” (PICO) guide, the patient population of interest was patients with T2DM, while interventions included the provision or inclusion of caregivers or caregiving in the remote monitoring of patients with T2DM. Comparator groups for the included studies included patients with T2DM who received usual care or other remote monitoring interventions without caregivers. Studies that evaluated only the role of caregivers or remote management of patients with T2DM separately, as well as studies that included patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus or maturity-onset diabetes in the young, were excluded. We also excluded case reports, series, irrelevant systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

    All references and abstracts extracted from the databases were exported to the EndNote (version X9; Clarivate). Duplicate citations were removed, and the screening of the titles, abstracts, and full text of the retrieved citations was performed by 2 independent reviewers (JJBS and MFRG) to identify relevant articles for inclusion. All disagreements during the initial screening process were discussed, and any unresolved disagreements were arbitrated by a third independent reviewer (MHAY). Additionally, hand searching of references within the included studies was performed to identify other relevant studies.

    Data Collection Process and Data Items

    Information from included citations was collated in a standardized Excel (Microsoft Corp) worksheet by 2 independent reviewers. We conducted an initial pilot data extraction for the first 15 citations to ensure the accuracy of data extraction. The study details extracted included the study title, publication year, sample size, characteristics of the patient population, details related to caregivers, and modality of remote monitoring. With regard to outcomes of interest, the Economic, Clinical and Humanistic Outcome model proposed by Kozma et al [42] was adapted. It is an integrated approach that considers economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes in the allocation of health care resources. The outcomes from the included studies were broadly classified into 3 main categories: clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes based on the model. Clinical outcomes were further subdivided into T2DM related, non-T2DM related, and other health outcomes. Humanistic outcomes encompassed measures related to the patient’s health-related quality of life, other patient-reported outcomes, and behavioral changes [42]. Economic outcomes included health care–related expenditures and health resource use.

    Studying the Risk of Bias Assessment and Reporting Bias Assessment

    In this review, the study quality assessment tools from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute were used to evaluate the risk of bias among the included studies [43]. A total of 2 independent reviewers (JJBS and MFRG) evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias among the included studies. The checklists consist of items that assess each individual study’s risk of bias associated with the research question, patient population recruitment, outcome evaluation, and patient dropout percentages. All disagreements in the risk of bias assessment were arbitrated with a third independent reviewer (MHAY).

    Effect Measures and Synthesis Methods

    Details related to the characteristics of all included studies are available in Multimedia Appendix 1 [17,25-34]. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the included studies. Continuous variables were reported as the mean (SD), while categorical variables were reported as n (%). To improve the completeness of this review, the authors of studies with missing information were contacted. A total of 2 separate email reminders were sent out 2 weeks apart, and information that could not be retrieved was labeled as unavailable. Data imputation was not performed in this review.

    To evaluate if meta-analyses could be performed for this review, 2 independent reviewers (JJBS and MFRG) examined the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies. Clinical heterogeneity looks at the differences in the characteristics of patient population and outcomes. On the other hand, methodological heterogeneity refers to variation in study design and risk of bias. Due to the expected heterogeneity of the included studies, meta-analyses were not performed. A narrative synthesis was provided for the role of caregivers in the remote management of patients with T2DM.


    A total of 11 articles were included in this review from the initial 1198 articles identified (Figure 1). The percentage of articles agreed upon between MFRG and JJBS during the screening of articles was 91%. All disagreements were resolved.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Flowchart for inclusion of articles.

    Study Characteristics

    Table 1 shows the characteristics of the studies in this review. The majority of the studies (6/11, 55%) were conducted between 2001 and 2010. Most of the studies were conducted in North America (7/11, 64%), and the most common study design was a randomized controlled trial (5/11, 46%). Most studies were conducted in a primary health care setting (8/11, 73%), and all studies used primary data sources (n=11). The majority of the caregivers in the studies involved family members or friends (10/11, 91%), while the most common remote monitoring modalities were interactive voice response (5/11, 46%) and phone consultations (4/11, 36%). With regard to the risk of bias, 3 studies were noted to have a moderate risk of bias, while the remaining studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias (Multimedia Appendix 1 [17,25-34]).

    Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 2 [17,25-34] shows a summary of study details related to the 11 studies included. The follow-up period across studies ranged from 3 months to 3 years.

    Table 1. Characteristics of included studies (N=11).
    Characteristics of studiesFrequency, n (%)
    Year of study

    		Between 2001 and 20106 (55)

    		Between 2011 and 20215 (46)
    Continent of study

    		North America7 (64)

    		South America2 (18)

    		Asia1 (9)

    		Europe1 (9)
    Country of study

    		United States of America6 (55)

    		Bolivia1 (9)

    		Brazil1 (9)

    		China1 (9)

    		United Kingdom1 (9)

    		Multiple countries1 (9)
    Study design

    		Randomized controlled trial5 (46)

    		Observational study4 (36)

    		Retrospective cohort study2 (18)
    Patient population, n

    		1-1003 (27)

    		101-2001 (9)

    		201-3002 (18)

    		301-4003 (27)

    		>5002 (18)
    Study setting (health care)

    		Primary8 (73)

    		Tertiary3 (27)
    Data source

    		Primary11 (100)
    Type of caregivers

    		Family or friends10 (91)

    		Others1 (9)
    Remote monitoring modality

    		Interactive voice response5 (46)

    		Phone consultations4 (36)

    		Text messages1 (9)

    		Apps (web or mobile)1 (9)

    Clinical Outcomes

    Laboratory Parameters

    Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 3 [17,25-34] shows the types of outcomes and the results of the studies. A total of 6 studies explored the impact on diabetes-related parameters. Of these 6 studies, 3 showed significant improvements in diabetes-related parameters (P≤.05) for the intervention group. Patients in the intervention arm showed lower HbA1c compared with the control group as well as improvements in parameters such as fasting blood glucose and self-reported glucose reading compared with the control group [17,25,26]. On the other hand, the other 3 studies showed no significant improvements in diabetes-related parameters (P>.05) for the intervention group in areas including HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and the lipid panel [28-30].

    Medication Adherence

    A total of 2 studies assessed self-reported adherence to diabetes medications. One of the studies reported a 19% improvement in medication adherence in the intervention group over the control group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.19; P=.03) while the other reported a significant improvement in the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale before and after intervention (95% CI −0.42 to −0.18; P<.001) [17,25].

    Humanistic Outcomes

    Patients’ Diabetes-Related Symptoms and Distress

    All 3 studies that explored diabetes-related symptoms and distress showed that the intervention group had significantly better diabetes-related symptoms and distress in terms of general health, days spent in bed due to illnesses, or diabetes-related distress (P≤.05) [17,25,31].

    Patients’ Quality of Life

    A total of 2 studies explored the impact on patients’ quality of life [17,29]. One of them showed significant improvements in patients’ quality of life in terms of physical function (P≤.05) in the intervention group, while the other study showed no significant improvements in quality of life (P>.05).

    Patient Satisfaction

    A study examined the impact of a patient's perceived satisfaction with the program through follow-up survey questions. The majority of the patients (89%) reported being “very satisfied” with the program that they were enrolled in (P=.04) [31].

    Compliance to Remote Monitoring

    A total of 5 studies explored the impact of remote monitoring on patients’ compliance. All 5 studies showed significant increases in the patients’ compliance to remote monitoring in areas such as call completion rates, diabetes course completion rates, and blood glucose and blood pressure monitoring [17,26,29,32,33].

    Economic Outcomes

    A study explored the impact on patients’ health care use. The study showed significantly higher rates of 12-month hospitalizations compared with the control group (P≤.05) [34].


    Overview

    To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that has evaluated the role of caregivers in the remote management of T2DM. Current evidence in the literature appears to suggest a positive impact of caregivers on T2DM with regards to clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes ranging from diabetes-related parameters to patients’ compliance to monitoring.

    The positive impact of caregivers on remote monitoring of T2DM is likely multifactorial. Studies have shown that common barriers to remote monitoring include patient-related factors such as health literacy, technology-related barriers, and challenging patient experiences with remote monitoring technologies [44]. Through the partnership with caregivers, knowledge gaps related to technical aspects of remote monitoring technologies and T2DM can be bridged, which in turn aids in improving patients’ adherence to medication and remote monitoring services [45]. This is important in the context of varied levels of electronic health literacy among older patients, which often impair their ability to comply with remote monitoring technologies [46]. In addition, patients with poor language skills, poor digital literacy skills, and equipment deficiencies are often excluded from remote monitoring programs and studies due to technological and logistical limitations [47]. With caregivers serving as potential avenues to bridge some of the modifiable gaps, there is a potential role to allow for the expansion of remote monitoring technologies to these previously excluded patient populations if suitable caregivers can be identified to empower patients.

    With regard to the mixed evidence related to improvements in T2DM-related laboratory parameters, there are several reasons that may account for the lack of statistical differences in T2DM parameters in half of the studies. For example, the study by Burner et al [29] was limited by the study sample size as it was intended to be a feasibility study and was not adequately powered to evaluate differences in glycemic control between the intervention and control groups. Likewise, the study by Gambling and Long [30] sought to qualitatively evaluate telephone-based support for patients with T2DM and recruited only 9 patients. Another postulated reason could be due to underestimation of the effects of an intervention when it is offered alongside routine care, which has been seen in other studies evaluating the education of patients with T2DM [48]. Hence, larger studies are required to confirm and evaluate the impact caregivers have on the clinical outcomes of patients with T2DM.

    Interestingly, the study by Wakefield Vaughan-Sarrazin [34] showed an increased number of hospitalizations among patients with T2DM on remote monitoring with caregivers compared with the control group. In this study, one of the key findings was a significantly higher caregiver burden and strain in the intervention group. This highlights the importance of recognizing the potential impacts on caregivers when engaging them in the remote monitoring of patients with T2DM. A review performed by Doherty et al [49] found that caregivers also have their own unique set of needs, which center around psychosocial support to maintain normalcy, maintaining their social lives, and support with navigating health care systems. Likewise, caregivers may also suffer from underlying medical conditions, and studies have shown that poor social support and depressive symptoms are associated with poor outcomes in caregiving [50]. Familial strife may also ensue from the overload of caregiving tasks, limited financial resources, and underappreciation of the work rendered by caregivers [51]. With the looming shortage of caregivers and decreasing caregiver-to-patient ratio globally due to declining fertility rates [52], developing strategies to ensure efficient and safe enlistment of caregivers in remote monitoring of patients with T2DM will be crucial. Some interventions suggested before the initiation of remote monitoring strategies include having caregivers attend clinics to allow physicians to formally assess them for their suitability for remote monitoring programs [53].

    In this review, only 2 studies evaluated the potential of mHealth or web-based apps with caregivers. Nudge strategies, which encompass reminders, gamification, and social modeling approaches to drive positive health-related behaviors, have been increasingly recognized as a potential solution to improving diabetes control [54]. With advances in information and communication-related technology, there is a growing number of multifunctional social media and mobile apps that can deliver scalable behavior nudges for patients with T2DM [55]. For example, mHealth applications on a widely used Chinese social media platform, WeChat, allow for the sharing of blood pressure readings with patients’ caregivers, which allows them to aid in nudging patients [56]. Future studies should look into exploring the role of mHealth apps and the involvement of caregivers in diabetes care.

    Limitations of This Review

    The results of this systematic review should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations: due to significant heterogeneity in the training of caregivers and outcomes assessed across the studies, meta-analyses could not be performed. Future reviews should consider performing meta-analyses of the developing literature on remote monitoring technologies used in patients with T2DM and the role of caregivers. Another limitation was the lack of standardized outcomes assessed across studies. Future studies should look into developing a core set of outcomes for studies examining remote monitoring technologies for diabetes patients. Currently, generic instruments such as the CONSORT-eHealth checklist have been developed, but disease-specific instruments are required for the assessment of patients with T2DM [57]. This will in turn aid in facilitating meaningful cross-comparisons of different caregivers and their impact on remote monitoring of patients with T2DM. Lastly, the follow-up period of the studies included in this review is generally short. One of the main challenges with the use of remote monitoring technologies is their increasing attrition rates with time, which can be as high as 50% [58,59]. More longitudinal studies are required to assess the role of caregivers in reducing patient attrition rates and their long-term impact on patients with T2DM who are remotely monitored.

    Conclusions

    This review has shown that caregivers may play a role in improving clinical outcomes among patients with T2DM under remote monitoring. More studies are required to understand the impact of caregivers on less studied populations, such as Asian populations, and long-term patient outcomes.

    Acknowledgments

    This research is supported by the National Research Foundation, Singapore, under its AI Singapore Program (award AISG-GC-2019-001-2A). This research is also supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Health Promotion, Preventive Health, Population Health and Health Services Research (HPHSR) Clinician Scientist Award (ID HCSAINV21jun-0004).

    Data Availability

    All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its Multimedia Appendices.

    Authors' Contributions

    LLL and JJBS were the study’s principal investigators and were responsible for the conception and design of the study. MFRG, MHAY, YHK, and JT were the coinvestigators. MFRG, MHAY, and JJBS were responsible for screening and the inclusion of relevant articles. MFRG, JJBS, and MHAY also performed the data extraction of included articles. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data. JJBS, MFRG, and MHAY prepared the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors revised the draft critically for important intellectual content and agreed to the final submission.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Details of full search strategy and risk of bias assessment for included studies.

    DOCX File , 22 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Summary of the 11 studies included into the systematic review.

    DOCX File , 17 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Summary of the outcome measures reported from the 11 studies included into the review.

    DOCX File , 20 KB
    1. Vegesna A, Tran M, Angelaccio M, Arcona S. Remote patient monitoring via non-invasive digital technologies: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health. 2017;23(1):3-17. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Dekker MJHJ, Stolk P, Pasmooij AMG. The use of remote monitoring technologies: a review of recent regulatory scientific advices, qualification opinions, and qualification advices issued by the European Medicines Agency. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:619513. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Goodridge D, Marciniuk D. Rural and remote care: overcoming the challenges of distance. Chron Respir Dis. 2016;13(2):192-203. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Doraiswamy S, Jithesh A, Mamtani R, Abraham A, Cheema S. Telehealth use in Geriatrics Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A scoping review and evidence synthesis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1755. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Stanford Medicine increases use of televisits to help prevent spread of coronavirus. Stanford Medicine News Centre. 2020. URL: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/stanford-increases-use-of-telemedicine.html [accessed 2021-06-27]
    6. Telehealth: a quarter-trillion-dollar post-COVID-19 reality? McKinsey & Company. 2020. URL: https:/​/www.​mckinsey.com/​industries/​healthcare-systems-and-services/​our-insights/​telehealth-a-quarter-trillion-dollar-post-covid-19-reality [accessed 2021-06-27]
    7. IDF Diabetes Atlas 9th edition. International Diabetes Federation. 2019. URL: https://diabetesatlas.org/atlas/ninth-edition/ [accessed 2023-08-16]
    8. Seng JJB, Kwan YH, Lee VSY, Tan CS, Zainudin SB, Thumboo J, et al. Differential health care use, diabetes-related complications, and mortality among five unique classes of patients with type 2 diabetes in Singapore: a latent class analysis of 71,125 patients. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(5):1048-1056. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Rodriguez-León C, Villalonga C, Munoz-Torres M, Ruiz JR, Banos O. Mobile and wearable technology for the monitoring of diabetes-related parameters: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(6):e25138. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. American Diabetes Association. 7. Diabetes technology: standards of medical care in diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(Suppl 1):S77-S88. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Felix IR, Castro LA, Rodriguez LF, Banos O. Mobile sensing for behavioral research: a component-based approach for rapid deployment of sensing campaigns. Int J Distrib Sens Netw. 2019;15(9):155014771987418. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    12. Kitsiou S, Paré G, Jaana M, Gerber B. Effectiveness of mHealth interventions for patients with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173160. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Mushcab H, Kernohan WG, Wallace J, Martin S. Web-based remote monitoring systems for self-managing type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(7):498-509. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Georgeff M. Digital technologies and chronic disease management. Aust Fam Physician. 2014;43(12):842-846. [Medline]
    15. Foong HF, Kyaw BM, Upton Z, Car LT. Facilitators and barriers of using digital technology for the management of diabetic foot ulcers: a qualitative systematic review. Int Wound J. 2020;17(5):1266-1281. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Mayberry LS, Kripalani S, Rothman RL, Osborn CY. Bridging the digital divide in diabetes: family support and implications for health literacy. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(10):1005-1012. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Aikens JE, Rosland AM, Piette JD. Improvements in illness self-management and psychological distress associated with telemonitoring support for adults with diabetes. Prim Care Diabetes. 2015;9(2):127-134. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Kitsiou S, Paré G, Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(3):e63. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Duan Y, Xie Z, Dong F, Wu Z, Lin Z, Sun N, et al. Effectiveness of home blood pressure telemonitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies. J Hum Hypertens. 2017;31(7):427-437. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Chi NC, Demiris G. A systematic review of telehealth tools and interventions to support family caregivers. J Telemed Telecare. 2015;21(1):37-44. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Zmora R, Mitchell LL, Bustamante G, Finlay J, Nkimbeng M, Gaugler JE. Dementia caregivers' experiences and reactions to remote activity monitoring system alerts. J Gerontol Nurs. 2021;47(1):13-20. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Alvarado MM, Kum HC, Gonzalez Coronado K, Foster MJ, Ortega P, Lawley MA. Barriers to remote health interventions for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and proposed classification scheme. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(2):e28. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Lee PA, Greenfield G, Pappas Y. The impact of telehealth remote patient monitoring on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):495. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. de Guzmán Quispe EN, García LM, Villagrán CO, Heijmans M, Sunol R, Fraile-Navarro D, et al. The perspectives of patients with chronic diseases and their caregivers on self-management interventions: a scoping review of reviews. Patient. 2021;14(6):719-740. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Mayberry LS, Piette JD, Lee AA, Aikens JE. Out-of-home informal support important for medication adherence, diabetes distress, hemoglobin A1c among adults with type 2 diabetes. J Behav Med. 2019;42(3):493-501. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Zhang Y, Liu C, Luo S, Huang J, Yang Y, Ma X, et al. Effectiveness of the family portal function on the Lilly Connected Care Program (LCCP) for patients with type 2 diabetes: retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 05, 2021;9(2):e25122. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Aikens JE, Rosland AM, Piette JD. Improvements in illness self-management and psychological distress associated with telemonitoring support for adults with diabetes. Prim Care Diabetes. 2015;9(2):127-134. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Gomes LC, Coelho ACM, Gomides DDS, Foss-Freitas MC, Foss MC, Pace AE. Contribution of family social support to the metabolic control of people with diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Appl Nurs Res. 2017;36:68-76. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Burner E, Lam CN, DeRoss R, Kagawa-Singer M, Menchine M, Arora S. Using mobile health to improve social support for low-income latino patients with diabetes: a mixed-methods analysis of the feasibility trial of TExT-MED + FANS. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(1):39-48. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Gambling T, Long A. Tailoring advice and optimizing response: a case study of a telephone-based support for patients with type 2 diabetes. Fam Pract. 2010;27(2):179-185. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Piette JD, Marinec N, Gallegos-Cabriales EC, Gutierrez-Valverde JM, Rodriguez-Saldaña J, Mendoz-Alevares M, et al. Spanish-speaking patients' engagement in Interactive Voice Response (IVR) support calls for chronic disease self-management: data from three countries. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(2):89-94. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Piette JD, Marinec N, Janda K, Morgan E, Schantz K, Yujra ACA, et al. Structured caregiver feedback enhances engagement and impact of mobile health support: a randomized trial in a lower-middle-income country. Telemed J E Health. 2016;22(4):261-268. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Piette JD, Rosland AM, Marinec NS, Striplin D, Bernstein SJ, Silveira MJ. Engagement with automated patient monitoring and self-management support calls: experience with a thousand chronically ill patients. Med Care. 2013;51(3):216-223. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Wakefield BJ, Vaughan-Sarrazin M. Home telehealth and caregiving appraisal in chronic illness. Telemed J E Health. 2017;23(4):282-289. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Seng JJB, Monteiro AY, Kwan YH, Zainudin SB, Tan CS, Thumboo J, et al. Population segmentation of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and its clinical applications—a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):49. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Reigada C, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Novellas A, Gonçalves E. The caregiver role in palliative care: a systematic review of the literature. Health Care Curr Rev. 2015;3(2):1000143. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    37. Byun E, Lerdal A, Gay CL, Lee KA. How adult caregiving impacts sleep: a systematic review. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2016;2(4):191-205. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Types of caregivers: the different ways that people give back. Griswold Home Care. URL: https://www.griswoldhomecare .com/be-a-caregiver/who-are-caregivers-/types-of-caregivers/ [accessed 2021-08-16]
    39. Olson S, National Research Council (U.S.); Committee on the Role of Human Factors in Home Health Care; Board on Human-Systems Integration. The Role of Human Factors in Home Health Care: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC. The National Academies Press; 2010.
    40. Criner GJ, Bourbeau J, Diekemper RL, Ouellette DR, Goodridge D, Hernandez P, et al. Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society guideline. Chest. 2015;147(4):894-942. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Oh H, Rizo C, Enkin M, Jadad A. What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e1. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Kozma CM, Reeder CE, Schulz RM. Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. Clin Ther. 1993;15(6):1121-1132; discussion 1120. [Medline]
    43. Study quality assessment tools. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. 2021. URL: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-to pics/study-quality-assessment-tools [accessed 2021-06-20]
    44. Houlding E, Mate KKV, Engler K, Ortiz-Paredes D, Pomey MP, Cox J, et al. Barriers to use of remote monitoring technologies used to support patients with COVID-19: rapid review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(4):e24743. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Walker RC, Tong A, Howard K, Darby N, Palmer SC. Patients' and caregivers' expectations and experiences of remote monitoring for peritoneal dialysis: a qualitative interview study. Perit Dial Int. 2020;40(6):540-547. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Jung SO, Son YH, Choi E. E-health literacy in older adults: an evolutionary concept analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022;22(1):28. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Van Grootven B, Irusta LA, Christiaens W, Mistiaen P, De Meester C, Cornelis J, et al. Experiences with the implementation of remote monitoring in patients with COVID-19: a qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2023;55(1):67-78. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Klein HA, Jackson SM, Street K, Whitacre JC, Klein G. Diabetes self-management education: miles to go. Nurs Res Pract. 2013;2013:581012. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Doherty LC, Fitzsimons D, McIlfatrick SJ. Carers' needs in advanced heart failure: a systematic narrative review. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016;15(4):203-212. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Grigorovich A, Lee A, Ross H, Woodend AK, Forde S, Cameron JI. A longitudinal view of factors that influence the emotional well-being of family caregivers to individuals with heart failure. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(8):844-850. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Diogo MJD, Ceolim MF, Cintra FA. [Teaching program for elderly women who care for elderly relatives in their home: report of experience]. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2005;39(1):97-102. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Redfoot D, Feinberg L, Houser A. The aging of the baby boom and the growing care gap: a look at future declines in the availability of family caregivers. AARP. 2013. URL: https:/​/www.​aarp.org/​home-family/​caregiving/​info-08-2013/​the-aging -of-the-baby-boom-and-the-growing-care-gap-AARP-ppi-ltc.​html [accessed 2023-02-05]
    53. Rosland AM, Piette JD, Choi H, Heisler M. Family and friend participation in primary care visits of patients with diabetes or heart failure: patient and physician determinants and experiences. Med Care. 2011;49(1):37-45. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Kwan YH, Cheng TY, Yoon S, Ho LYC, Huang CW, Chew EH, et al. A systematic review of nudge theories and strategies used to influence adult health behaviour and outcome in diabetes management. Diabetes Metab. 2020;46(6):450-460. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Xia SF, Maitiniyazi G, Chen Y, Wu XY, Zhang Y, Zhang XY, et al. Web-based TangPlan and WeChat combination to support self-management for patients with type 2 diabetes: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022;10(3):e30571. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Keane M, Su G. When push comes to nudge: a Chinese digital civilisation in-the-making. Media Int Aust. 2019;173(1):3-16. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    57. Eysenbach G, CONSORT-EHEALTH Group. 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]
    58. Ruggiero L, Moadsiri A, Quinn LT, Riley BB, Danielson KK, Monahan C, et al. Diabetes island: preliminary impact of a virtual world self-care educational intervention for African Americans with type 2 diabetes. JMIR Serious Games. 2014;2(2):e10. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Reagan L, Pereira K, Jefferson V, Evans Kreider K, Totten S, D'Eramo Melkus G, et al. Diabetes self-management training in a virtual environment. Diabetes Educ. 2017;43(4):413-421. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    AOR: adjusted odds ratio
    HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c
    mHealth: mobile health
    PICO: patient, intervention, comparator, and outcomes
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus

    Edited by T de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 04.03.23; peer-reviewed by S Donevant, S Badawy; comments to author 21.04.23; revised version received 24.04.23; accepted 31.07.23; published 11.09.23.

    Copyright

    ©Jun Jie Benjamin Seng, Meng Ferng Ryan Gwee, Mei Hui Amanda Yong, Yu Heng Kwan, Julian Thumboo, Lian Leng Low. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 11.09.2023.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.