Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics

From: Impact of technology-based interventions for children and young people with type 1 diabetes on key diabetes self-management behaviours and prerequisites: a systematic review

Study Design Medium Setting Age range N % Male No. of patients lost to analysis Intervention Control group Relevant outcomes Adherence
Berndt et al. (2014) [30] 2 group RCT Mobile phone app Germany 8–18 68 39.7 0 Encouraged to use 3/day for 4 weeks Usual care HbA1c, self-efficacy Below recommended amount
Boogerd et al. (2013) [31] 2 group RCT Interactive online tool Netherlands 11–21 62 35.5 12 Access for 9 months Usual care HbA1c, self-efficacy, knowledge 35–65% engagement with components
Clements & Staggs (2017) [21] 2 group non-RCT Mobile phone app USA 10–16 81 49.0 11 Access for at least 60 days Usual care SMBG Synced 0.22 times a week
Dyal et al. (2017) [22] Cohort Interactive online tool Canada 8–12 13 53.0 2 Access for 3 months, encouraged by avatars to log 3 times/day None SMBG 69% logged in the recommended amount
Franklin et al. (2006) [34] 3 group RCT Text messaging support system Scotland 8–18 126 53.8 1 Received 1–2 messages a day for 1 year Usual care HbA1c, self-efficacy, knowledge Not relevant
Freeman et al. (2013) [41] 2 group RCT Internet-based videoconferencing USA 12–19 92 59.2 21 Up to 10 1–1.5 h sessions in a 12 week period Usual care Working alliance Completed 7 sessions on average
Frøisland et al. (2012) [38] Cohort Mobile phone app Norway 13–19 12 41.7 0 Access for 3 months, encouraged to use at least two 3 day periods None HbA1c Not reported
Giani et al. (2016) [23] Cohort CGM USA 8–17 61 52.0 0 Provided for 6 months None SMBG, insulin administration Used average of 5.4 days a week at baseline, 3.4 days a week at 6 months
Goyal et al. (2017) [12] 2 group RCT Mobile phone app Canada 11–16 92 45.7 1 1 h tutorial at start to enable independent usage over 6 months Usual care SMBG, insulin administration 65% had low or very low engagement
Han et al. (2015) [29] 3 group RCT Text messaging USA 10–17 30 43.0 0 Received 1 text message a day for 26 weeks Usual care HbA1c 2/4 educators accessed the program
Henkemans et al. (2017) [42] 3 group RCT Interactive robot Netherlands 7–12 28 48.1 1 Played a quiz with robot during 3 consecutive clinic appointments Usual care Knowledge, need satisfaction Only 100% completers included
Harris et al. (2015) [16] 2 group RCT Internet-based videoconferencing USA 12–19 90c 55.0 24 Up to 10 1–1.5 h sessions in a 12 week period Face-to-face skills sessions SMBG Completed 5.8 sessions on average
Herbert et al. (2016) [24] Cohort 2-way text messaging software USA 13–17 23 39.0 0 Daily interactive prompts and educational text messages for 6 weeks None SMBG 78% of text messages responded to
Kowalska et al. (2017) [28] 2 group RCT Computer software with automatised food and insulin calculation Poland < 18 106 39.6 2 Encouraged to use for at least 50% of meals for 26 weeks Usual care HbA1c 41.5% used the recommended amount
Landau et al. (2012) [17] 2 group RCT Internet-based glucose monitoring system Israel 11–20 70 15.0 3 Maximum of weekly calls for 6 months Usual care SMBG 66.6% accessed the recommended amount
Lehmkuhl et al. (2010) [19] 2 group RCT Telehealth behavioural therapy USA 9–17 323 28.1 0 3 × 15 min sessions a week for 12 weeks Usual care SMBG All sessions completed
Mulvaney et al. (2010) [32] 2 group RCT Internet-based program USA 13–17 72 55.6 0 6 multimedia stories over 11 weeks Usual care HbA1c, problem solving 63–76% engaged with various components
Mulvaney et al. (2012) [26] Cohort Mobile phone-based ecological momentary assessment USA 12–17 50 50.1 0 2 calls a day for 10 days None SMBG, insulin administration 59.4% total call records with complete data
Mulvaney et al. (2012b) [39] 2 group non-RCT Personalised automated text messaging USA 13–17 28 57.0 5 10 text messages a week for 3 months Usual care HbA1c 2.9 messages a week responded to
Newton et al. (2009) [27] 2 group RCT Text messaging New Zealand 11–18 78 47.0 0 Weekly text messages/ pedometer reminders over 12 weeks Usual care Physical activity All messages sent
Nordfeldt et al. (2003) [37]/ Nordfeldt et al. (2005) [20] 3 group RCT Personalised video tapes Sweden 2–18 332 83.0 0 2 mailed videotapes Usual care SMBG, HbA1c Use range between 1 and 20 times
Nunn et al. (2006) [35] 2 group RCT Telephone support and educational program Australia 3–16 139 56.0 16 Bimonthly 15–30 min telephone calls for 7 months Usual care HbA1c, knowledge Not stated
Pinsker et al. (2011) [40] Cohort Website USA Omitteda 52 51.9 20 Given access for 6 months Non-users HbA1c Logged in 4 or more times during the study
Rachmiel et al. (2015) [25] 2 group non-RCT CGM Israel 1–17 149 47.7 0 Provided with for 1 year Usual care SMBG 38% used 75% of the time, 50% stopped using by 6 months and 66% by 1 year
Raiff et al. (2016) [13] 2 group RCT Internet-based program USA 13–18 52 58.5 11 Given access for 20 days Non-users SMBG All participants used on at least 10 days
Rami et al. (2006) [36] 2 group crossover RCT Mobile phone-based support program Austria 10–19 36 55.6 0 Received 1 text a week for 3 months and access for 6 months Usual care HbA1c 25% engaged < 50% of the recommended amount
Schiaffini et al. (2016) [14] 2 group RCT Website Italy Omittedb 29 37.9 2 Access for 5 years, monthly reminders to access Usual care SMBG, insulin administration 2 patients disengaged in the fifth year
Whittemore et al. (2010) [33] 2 group RCT Interactive internet sessions USA 13–16 12 42.0 0 1 session a week for 5 weeks Internet education intervention HbA1c, self-efficacy 83% completed all sessions
Whittemore et al. (2012) [18] 2 group RCT Interactive internet sessions USA 11–14 320 45.0 0 1 session a week for 5 weeks Internet education intervention SMBG, self-efficacy 78% completed at least 4 sessions
Whittemore et al. (2016) [15] 2 group RCT Internet psychoeducational program USA 11–14 124 37.4 0 Prompted to login 2 times a week for 4 weeks Open access website SMBG, self-efficacy 85% logged in at least once overall
  1. aAge range not stated. Described as ‘children’, mean age of 11.2. bAge range not stated. Recruited from children’s hospital, mean age of 13. cN refers to child-parent dyads, only child data considered in this review