MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in 10 databases from inception until February 2018. All economic evaluations assessing the economic evaluation of telemedicine in diabetes were eligible for inclusion. We subsequently evaluated the study quality in terms of effectiveness measures, cost measure, economic model, as well as time horizon.
RESULTS: Of the 1877 studies identified, 14 articles were included in our final review. The healthcare providers' fees are a major predictor for total cost. In particular, the use of telemedicine for retinal screening was beneficial and cost-effective for diabetes management, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between $113.48/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $3,328.46/QALY (adjusted to 2017 inflation rate). Similarly, the use of telemonitoring and telephone reminders was cost-effective in diabetes management.
CONCLUSIONS: Among all telemedicine strategies examined, teleophthalmology was the most cost-effective intervention. Future research is needed to provide evidence on the long-term experience of telemedicine and facilitate resource allocation.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional community survey was conducted in September till November 2020 across nine government health clinics focusing on diabetes mellitus (Type 1 or Type 2) patients, aged 18 years and older, receiving Diabetes Medication Adherence Counseling (DMTAC) services and able to use smart devices. A self-developed questionnaire with four sections was used to gather demographic information, explore mHealth apps usage and understand both users and non-users' experiences and perceptions. The questionnaire was tested through cognitive debriefing, translated into Malay, pre-tested and finalized by the expert committee. The questionnaire was digitally implemented using Google® Form and QR code. After obtaining informed consent, data collection was performed by the trained DMTAC pharmacists. Statistical analyses involved descriptive and inferential analyses.
RESULTS: The study analyzed the engagement of 295 patients living with diabetes with mHealth apps. Females (54.9%), of Malay ethnicity (58.3%) and with a mean age of 53.8 years (SD: 12.38) constituted the majority. Diabetes duration had a median of 6 years (IQR: 3.0, 10.0) with prevalent comorbidities like hypertension (58.0%) and dyslipidemia (42.7%). Most patients were employed (44.7%) and their primary source of diabetes management information was through healthcare providers (92.5%). Despite the high app use for social interaction, only 13.6% used mHealth apps for disease management. Users were influenced by social media (65.0%) and favored for wellness apps and disease monitoring. Users perceived the mHealth app as useful (97.5%), yet faced challenges over the app initiation, charges and data security. Non-users cited lack of awareness (70.2%), struggled with app startup (22.4%) and preference for conventional healthcare visits (22.0%). In multivariable analysis, longer diabetes duration reduced mHealth app usage (p = 0.046), while multimorbidity increased the likelihood (p = 0.001). Awareness of the availability of health apps significantly influenced the usage of mHealth apps (p
METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was conducted for 12 weeks among older adults with diabetes in elderly care facility in Peninsular Malaysia. Six elderly care facility were randomly allocated by an independent person into two groups (intervention and control). The intervention group (three elderly care facility) received a health education program on foot self-care behaviour while the control group (three elderly care facility) received standard care. Participants were assessed at baseline, and at week-4 and week-12 follow-ups. The primary outcome was foot-self-care behaviour. Foot care self-efficacy (efficacy expectation), foot care outcome expectation, knowledge of foot care and quality of life were the secondary outcomes. Data were analysed with Mixed Design Analysis of Variance using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22.0.
RESULTS: 184 respondents were recruited but only 76 met the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. Foot self-care behaviour, foot care self-efficacy (efficacy expectation), foot care outcome expectation and knowledge of foot care improved in the intervention group compared to the control group (p < 0.05). However, some of these improvements did not significantly differ compared to the control group for QoL physical symptoms and QoL psychosocial functioning (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The self-efficacy enhancing program improved foot self-care behaviour with respect to the delivered program. It is expected that in the future, the self-efficacy theory can be incorporated into diabetes education to enhance foot self-care behaviour for elderly with diabetes living in other institutional care facilities.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12616000210471.