Skip to main content

Using mHealth applications for self-care – An integrative review on perceptions among adults with type 1 diabetes



Individually designed interventions delivered through mobile health applications (mHealth apps) may be able to effectively support diabetes self-care. Our aim was to review and synthesize available evidence in the literature regarding perception of adults with type 1 diabetes on the features of mHealth apps that help promote diabetes self-care, as well as facilitators and barriers to their use. An additional aim was to review literature on changes in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the same population while using mHealth apps for diabetes self-care.


Quantitative and qualitative studies focusing on adults aged 18 years and over with type 1 diabetes in any context were included. A systematic literature search using selected databases was conducted. Data was synthesised using narrative synthesis.


We found that features of mHealth apps designed to help promote and maintain diabetes self-care could be categorized into self-care data monitoring, app display, feedback & reminders, data entry, data sharing, and additional features. Factors affecting the use of mHealth apps reported in the literature were personal factors, app design or usability factors, privacy and safety factors, or socioeconomic factors. Quality of life and diabetes distress were the most commonly reported PROMs in the included studies.


We are unable to reach a conclusive result due to the heterogeneity of the included studies as well as the limited number of studies reporting on these areas among adults with type 1 diabetes. We therefore recommend further large-scale studies looking into these areas that can ultimately improve mHealth app use in type 1 diabetes self-care.

Systematic review registration

Prospero CRD42020157620.

Peer Review reports


Diabetes can lead to a large economic burden being placed on individuals, the health-care system, and the wider global economy [1]. Acute complications caused by diabetes are a significant contributor to mortality, high costs, and poor quality of life [2]. People with type 1 diabetes with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) in the normal range face twice the risk of death from both cardiovascular and other complications when compared to the general population. This risk gradually increased with poor glycemic control [3]. Keeping blood sugar levels as close to the nondiabetic range as safely possible decreases the risk of complications caused by diabetes [4].

Self-care, an important aspect of diabetes care [5] is the process of maintaining health through health promoting practices and managing illness via self-care maintenance, self-care monitoring, and self-care management [6]. Self-care encompasses self-management, another widely used term in this context [7, 8]. However, self-care is sometimes considered as a component of self-management [9] or a synonym [8, 9]. In this study, we have chosen to use the term self-care. The seven diabetes self-care domains defined by the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (ADCES) are healthy eating, being active, taking medication, reducing risk, healthy coping, problem solving and monitoring. Here monitoring involves data monitoring of overall health including blood glucose levels, blood pressure, weight, cholesterol levels, heart health, sleep, mood, medications, and eye, kidney and foot health that contributes towards self-care by learning how different foods, activity and medication affect blood glucose [10]. Technological advances in blood glucose monitoring and the delivery of diabetes treatment have transformed diabetes self-care [11].

Digital diabetes technology, which includes mobile health applications (mHealth apps), can aid self-care and thereby improve the lives of people with diabetes [12]. Use of mHealth apps has been shown to improve diabetes outcomes [13,14,15,16]. Nevertheless, among the numerous mHealth apps for diabetes management currently available on the market, many lack vital features such as automated data entry (via wireless or bluetooth etc.) or reminders to check blood glucose, and do not comprehensively address all the self-care needs of people with diabetes [17]. Research has also indicated that people do not adhere to mHealth app use with reports of participant engagement decreasing progressively over time [18], with long-term use [19]. Reported barriers to use were lack of awareness of existing mHealth apps and features, technical literacy barriers, lack of recommendation to use by health care providers [20, 21], personal factors such as refusing to take accountability, lack of motivation [20], unfriendly app designs, and cost [21]. Thus, there exists a mismatch between the intended use of mHealth apps and people’s real-world experiences [22].

We therefore thought that examining people’s perspectives on mHealth app features that help adhere to diabetes self-care, barriers to their use and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) might be of benefit. Thus, our aim was to review and synthesize available evidence in the literature regarding perception of adults with type 1 diabetes on the features of mHealth apps that help promote diabetes self-care, as well as facilitators and barriers to their use. An additional aim was to review literature on changes in patient reported outcome measures in the same population while using mobile health applications for diabetes self-care.



We performed an integrative review to explore the following from a global perspective; 1) Which mHealth app features help promote and maintain diabetes self-care as experienced by people with type 1 diabetes? 2) What are the factors affecting the use of mHealth apps in diabetes self-care? 3) How do mHealth apps for diabetes self-care affect PROMs? We chose this design as we had decided to include diverse studies to answer our research questions [23]. This review was conducted according to the Cochrane handbook [24]. Reporting of this study has been carried out according to PRISMA guidelines [25]. The study protocol (CRD42020157620) was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Table 1 below depicts the eligibility criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of articles in this review.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria


Outcome measures were focused on people’s perspective on usage of mHealth apps. Here specifically they were features of mHealth apps promoting diabetes self-care as experienced by people with type 1 diabetes, factors affecting mHealth apps use in diabetes self-care and changes in PROMs (e.g. diabetes empowerment level, fear of hypoglycaemia, perception of problem areas in diabetes, and quality of life), in studies on mHealth apps for diabetes self-care.

Information sources and search strategy

We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and IEEExplore. Trial registries such as WHO ICTRP as well as were searched initially to find any trials that might have been missed in searches. Pilot searches were performed using identified keywords (Table 2) and a librarian helped revise the search strategy. The search terms were kept broad in order to capture all studies reporting mHealth apps in diabetes self- care. The search strategies were tailored to each database (Table S1). Initial literature searches in all databases were conducted in March 2020 and updated in June 2021.

Table 2 Search terms

Data selection and extraction

The reference management software EndNote™ 20 was used to organize references retrieved from various databases and to remove duplicate studies, which were also removed manually. The decisions made by the reviewers during screening stages were documented using Rayyan QCRI software [26]. Paired reviewers independently assessed each stage of the review process, from study selection to data synthesis and analysis. Disagreements were discussed by all four authors until consensus was reached. In line with Cochrane guidelines, we were over-inclusive in the title and abstract screening stage including all studies on mHealth app use with a broad outcome focusing on diabetes self-care (for e.g. studies with HbA1C, time in normal blood sugar range etc. as outcome). It was in the full text screening stage, we focused on looking for studies with our specific outcomes of interest. This helped prevent missing any eligible study where our specific outcomes of interest were listed as a secondary outcome in full text alone and not in abstract or title. The references given in studies meeting the inclusion criteria were examined for relevant articles that could have been missed in the initial search, however, this revealed no new eligible studies.

The following characteristics were extracted in individual studies: Publication details, methodology, participant characteristics, intervention/exposure, control/comparison, outcomes of interest focusing on people’s experience (mHealth app features, factors affecting use and PROMs) and additional relevant information such as ethical clearance, study protocol registration, conflict of interest or bias. Key findings from each included study are summarized and presented as a matrix (Table 3).

Table 3 Characteristics of included studies

Quality appraisal

The following quality assessment tools were used in this study: Joanna Briggs institute quality appraisal tools for randomized control trials, quasi-experimental designs, cross sectional surveys, and qualitative designs. Two authors independently performed quality appraisals of all included studies (Table S2). Discrepancies were discussed among all four authors until resolved. We classified studies satisfying more than 70% of the appraisal tool criteria as high quality, 50–69% as moderate quality, and less than 50% as low quality. We arrived at these percentages by calculating the percentage ratio of questions in each quality appraisal form that were answered “yes” to the total number of questions. Assessment criteria answered as “unclear” were treated as a “no” i.e. not meeting the criteria. Pilot trials in our study were not categorized as high, moderate, or low quality. We have also chosen to include ethical approval status and conflict of interest in the quality appraisal table (Table S2), although we did not use these two criteria to assign a quality rating.

Data synthesis

We performed a narrative synthesis of extracted data due to the heterogeneity in the included studies. The stages in this method are developing a theory of how the intervention works, why and for whom, developing a preliminary synthesis of findings of included studies, exploring relationships in the data, and assessing the robustness of the synthesis [41].


A total of 4642 studies were retrieved from database searches. After removing duplicates, we screened the titles and abstracts of 2402 studies from which 312 studies were selected for full text screening. We excluded 298 studies during this stage due to reasons such as other eHealth interventions, population not having type 1 diabetes, irrelevant outcome, non-empirical research articles, irrelevant study design, and written in a language other than English. This resulted in 14 studies being included in the narrative synthesis (see Fig. 1 for PRISMA flowchart).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram adapted from Page MJ et al. [25]. Refer to *point 4 and **point 7 under exclusion criteria in Table 1

The eligible studies were published during the period 2012 to 2020. Five studies were from Europe, four were from North America, four were from Australia/New Zealand, and one was from Asia. The included studies had a range of study designs including randomised controlled trials (n = 3), quasi-experimental design (n = 6), cross sectional survey design (n = 3), and qualitative (n = 2). Of the quasi-experimental design studies, four were pilot trials. Seven of the included studies had mHealth app demonstrations before beginning the mHealth intervention [28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40] whereas the others did not report any demonstrations. In addition, these educational demonstrations varied from face-to-face demonstrations to distributing user guides, showing tutorial videos or all of these. Only three of the included studies reported offering technical support during the trial period [28, 37, 40]. The quality of the studies varied from high to moderate for the ten included studies that were not pilot trials. Study characteristics have been summarised in Table 3. The results of mHealth app features and factors affecting use have been arranged in the descending order of vote count.

mHealth app features that help promote and maintain diabetes self-care

Based on our literature review, we have categorized features that promote and maintain diabetes self-care from the perspective of people with type 1 diabetes, into self-care data monitoring features, app display features, feedback & reminders, data entry features, data sharing features, and additional features (Table S3). The self-care data monitoring was the most common feature mentioned in the literature followed by app display, feedback and reminders, data entry, and data sharing features.

Self-care data monitoring


Food database connectivity or a food diary was a self-care data monitoring feature that was either favored for use by people using apps [38] or named as a desired feature [27, 33, 39, 40]. This feature was appreciated as it can assist with carbohydrate tracking [27, 33]. In another study, a carbohydrate counter was found to be the most commonly used feature among people with type 1 diabetes [38]. Another desired feature relating to diet was a shortcut option to ‘register’ favorite foods, as this enabled easy access [33].

Insulin log & bolus calculator

An insulin log and insulin bolus calculator was a feature that was either frequently used [27] or named as a desired feature by people with type 1 diabetes [27, 39]. The app features that study participants named as useful included the ability to customize time settings for insulin algorithms, the reverse (carbohydrate) calculator that helps prevent/manage over-treatment of hypoglycemia, and the insulin bolus adjustment feature for alcohol intake that enables reflection on the effect of alcohol on blood glucose levels [33]. Participants did comment, however, that the insulin bolus suggestions could be more specific and tailored for different activities e.g. the app could have a sports mode function [37].

Blood glucose

Among people with type 1 diabetes, recording blood glucose levels was a commonly used [27, 38] and sought-after feature [39]. The way blood glucose was recorded is not reported in two of the studies [27, 38] whereas the other report the use of either blood glucose monitors or continuous glucose monitors by participants [39]. A log for abnormal blood sugar was also sought after [39].

Physical activity

Features that could be used to track physical activity were also commonly used among people with type 1 diabetes [38]. Study participants appreciated being able to automatically import physical activities from their smartwatch to their smartphone app [40].

App display features

People wanted personalized screen displays allowing the removal (or cloaking) of features to simplify the user interface [33]. The graphical display of blood glucose (trend) was a desired feature among people with type 1 diabetes [39] and was also found to promote app use [37]. However, study participants wanted a more advanced method of graphically presenting results [37]. Graphs in the mHealth app led to less worrying about hypo- or hyperglycemia [35]. In one study that used a combined smartwatch & smartphone app, participants wanted to be able to view blood glucose graphs on their smartwatch and their most recent measurement values [40].

Feedback & reminders

Reminders were a desired feature [39], in particular reminders to check blood glucose were appreciated [27, 40]. One study found that constant and immediate feedback increased understanding and management of glucose variability [35].

Data entry features

Study participants wanted automated data transmission from their blood glucose meter [33, 37] and insulin pumps [37] via wireless or bluetooth connectivity to their smartphone app. They appreciated being able to register data quickly and preferred it to be in the order blood glucose, insulin, then carbohydrates [40]. They also wanted to be able to retrospectively edit self-monitoring data and be able to choose from a predetermined list of events that may be linked to variations in blood glucose [33]. People wanted to be able to record pertinent events (illness, stress etc.) [33, 40] using free text or an additional information option [33].

Data sharing feature

Study participants were looking for features that allowed for the easy export of their self-care data from their smartphone to a cloud solution or a connection with their electronic personal health record [37]. Some required additional web-based storage primarily for their blood glucose diary [33].

Additional features

Medication logs & educational content were other desired features [39], however these were reported less in the included literature.

Factors affecting the use of mHealth apps in type 1 diabetes self-care

We found that factors affecting the use of mHealth apps reported in the included studies can be broadly categorized as personal factors, app design or usability related factors, privacy & safety factors, and socioeconomic factors. The most commonly reported factor was personal factors followed by app design or usability related factors.

Personal factors

In one study, the lowest percentage of app users was found in the age group 56 years or above [38]. However, another study found that increased mHealth app usage has been positively correlated with increasing age [36]. Some study participants found it convenient to enter data onto a smart phone, claiming that it enables “better record keeping” [33]. Some personal factors reported that could hinder use included a belief that apps would not help with their diabetes management or not having been able to find any good apps yet [38]. Some study participants were reluctant to use mHealth apps as they were perceived to demand too much information or that they demanded information at inconvenient times such as during an episode of low blood sugar [35].

App design/usability related factors

Design and technical concerns such as the complexity of the app or that it was not user friendly [37] can affect mHealth app use. Difficulty in converting macro data to raw data [33], inability to retrospectively input data [33, 37], or to correct errors in data [33], and use of outdated hardware [36] were some of the issues reported regarding app design flaws that hindered use.

Privacy & safety factors

mHealth app use can be affected by concerns about the validity of resources such as when insulin bolus calculator predications do not match a person’s own calculations or when a food database is not comprehensive enough [37].

Socioeconomic factors

One study reported that mHealth app interventions that did not cater to diverse socioeconomic backgrounds including those who have access to fewer resources [35] would lead to lower rates of use.

Impact of mHealth apps for diabetes self-care on patient reported outcome measures

We found a wide range of PROMs reported in relation to mHealth app use for self-care among type 1 diabetes. Quality of life and diabetes distress were the most commonly used PROMs in the included studies. Among the PROMs, diabetes self-care social motivation [31], and diabetes treatment satisfaction [34] were found to significantly improve with mHealth app use. In addition, one study reported a statistically significant decrease in mean diabetes-related emotional problems, which is one of the subscales of the instrument measuring diabetes distress [37]. However, mHealth app use was not found to significantly improve quality of life [28, 29, 32], diabetes self-efficacy [32, 37], hypoglycemia fear [37], diabetes self-care activity [31, 32], and diabetes distress as a whole [29, 34, 37] in any of the included studies. The various PROM scales used in each study is indicated in Table 3.


In conducting this study, we sought to identify mHealth app features perceived by persons with type 1 diabetes to promote and help maintain diabetes self-care, factors that affect the use of mHealth apps, and the impact of mHealth apps on PROMs. Self-care data monitoring, which has been identified in this study as a frequently used or desired feature in mHealth apps, is also one of the key concepts in the middle-range theory of self-care of chronic illness. The Self-care data monitoring feature along with app display, feedback and reminders, data entry, and data sharing features help the underlying processes of self-care i.e. decision making and reflection that contribute to better self-care maintenance and management [6]. Self-care data monitoring feature also corresponds to ADCES7 self-care domains [10] of healthy eating, being active, monitoring, and taking medication, whereas other features reported important in the included articles corresponds to domain of reducing risk. The domains healthy coping and problem solving were not found to be desired features in our study, which is in line with findings from another review [42]. This may be due to a lack of incorporation of such features in the interventions reported here even though WHO recommends a holistic approach to self-care interventions, including those designed for people with diabetes [43].

We were unable to find similar reviews looking at mHealth app features from the perspectives of people with type 1 diabetes for comparison although studies listing or mapping features of available mHealth apps do exist [44,45,46]. Similar to our findings, one review on mHealth app intervention in general found that app display features such as personalisation, interface etc. do increase user engagement [47]. Only seven of the 14 studies included here reported on features, which indicates a need for more research in this area.

Similar to our findings on factors affecting mHealth app use, other systematic reviews have reported app design factors [22, 48], including privacy, and personal factors including socioeconomic factors to impact mHealth app use [49]. Socioeconomic factors may have a major affect on mHealth app use considering the fact that using these apps requires internet access and app subscriptions. However, this was only mentioned in one study included in our review. This may be due to the fact that studies meeting our inclusion criteria were only from high-income economies [50] despite us taking a global perspective. Similarly, privacy and safety factors were mentioned only by one included study as factors that can affect mHealth app use, while two studies reported that participants prefer having data sharing features incorporated in the app. Privacy concerns during the process of information collection and transmission over the internet may affect mHealth app use [49] and this is an area worth further exploration in future studies.

Among the included studies, only seven studies report on factors preventing mHealth app use. This data cannot be considered conclusive due to the limited number of studies included. Therefore, more large-scale studies exploring factors affecting mHealth app use are needed. Such data is helpful in identifying potential motivators and inhibitors to mHealth app use which in turn can help healthcare professionals in supporting patients’ mHealth app use as well as app developers to make their products more user friendly.

PROMs are a standardized way of quantifying people’s perspectives on the impact of illness and treatment to help assess the delivery of appropriate patient care [51]. We chose to look into PROMs instead of commonly studied measures such as HbA1C, time spent in normal blood sugar range, etc., because they help to capture the preferences of patients [52] which is an important aspect of value based healthcare [53, 54] and is therefore, important in the evaluation of the role played by mHealth apps in diabetes self-care. Most PROMs reported in the included studies did not significantly improve with mHealth app use. A probable reason for this may be that the included studies were trials completed in limited periods of app usage ranging from two weeks to one year, which may not have been long enough to capture statistically significant changes in PROMs. PROMs are only of value if they are well designed and based on a sound conceptual model and have scientific rigour [51]. A review of the methodological quality of PROM-based questionnaires used among people with type 2 diabetes showed that only 43 out of 238 identified PROMs met COSMIN guidelines indicating suitability to use [55]. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) recommends PROMs that matter most to persons with Diabetes [56]. Among the three recommended PROMs only problem areas in diabetes (PAID) has been reported in the included studies whereas WHO-5 (well-being index) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) are not reported.

Our findings on PROMs are in line with reviews where mHealth app use did not show improvements in quality of life or self-care behaviors among people with type 1 [57] and people with type 2 diabetes [58], diabetes distress among people with type 2 diabetes [58], and diabetes-related self-efficacy among people with type 1 diabetes [57]. In contrast to our findings, diabetes treatment satisfaction showed no improvement in another study [57]. Also contrary to our results, another meta-analysis of people with type 2 diabetes showed significant improvement in self-efficacy, self-care activities, and health related quality of life among the mHealth app intervention group [59]. Of the seven included studies reporting on PROMs, three were pilot feasibility trials. More well-designed controlled trials on PROMs in this area will help healthcare professionals and organisations identify mHealth apps that can improve self-care among people with type 1 diabetes.

Methodological consideration

Our review shows that peer reviewed scientific journal articles reporting on patient perspectives on mHealth app usage for self-care like desirable features, factors affecting their use as well as changes in PROMs are scarce, among people with type 1 diabetes. This was indicated by the fact that of the 2402 title and abstracts screened only 14 studies qualified to be included in our paper. It was also notable that we couldnot find many long-term follow-up studies reporting on PROMs in relation to mHealth app use. This is inspite of employing a search strategy that was systematic and comprehensive yet still broad, in order to capture all available literature that could answer our research question. We even chose to include keywords like “type 2 diabetes” in order to not miss articles with subgroup results for both type 1 and type 2. However, there is the risk that we may have missed studies if they did not use keywords such as self-care or self-management. Additionally, we may have missed studies published in languages other than english. To ensure individual study quality we included only published peer reviewed artcicles. The involvement of multiple independent reviewers and detailed matrices to show how we arrived at the results, adds to reliability of the results. Our study is also in alignment with the United Nation’s sustainable development goal 3.4 [60] by trying to gather evidence on adherence to diabetes self-care using mHealth apps and thereby contributing to reducing diabetes related premature mortality.

We have used narrative synthesis for this integrative review due to the broad variation of the study designs of the included studies. We have attempted to describe the included studies, explore relationships within and between the studies, identify factors influencing the results, and assess the robustness of synthesis [41]. However, the heterogeneity of the included studies has prevented in-depth exploration of relationships between results as suggested in the narrative synthesis [41]. There was a wide variation in the designs and implementation methods used in the studies. The mHealth app interventions varied in terms of duration, type of features offered, app demonstrations given prior to the intervention’s start, and ongoing support. The baseline HbA1C level indicating blood glucose control set for inclusion of participants also varied from not having any set criteria to indication of HbA1C baseline levels of 7–10%. Studies also differed in other baseline inclusion requirements such as current use of a smartphone. Other systematic reviews have shown factors such as duration of intervention [59, 61] and the mean HbA1C level of participants at baseline [59] can significantly impact outcomes. With regard to PROMs, the scales used varied widely (Table 3) within each PROM. Therefore, the results could only be represented as a vote count.

The quality of the ten full-scale studies included in this paper ranges from high to moderate. We have used a percentage calculation similar to a number of other studies to help classify quality [62,63,64]. A downside of this method, however, is that certain criteria in the appraisal questionnaire may carry more weight than others in deciding overall quality, which is not taken into consideration here. We chose not to classify the four pilot trials included in the study into quality categories as pilot trials assess feasibility using small sample sizes and do not truly fit any of the quality appraisal instruments. In the included studies only two [28, 34] used mHealth apps with a traceable medical device regulation class.

We have limited our inclusion criteria to mHealth apps that have at least one or more of the features like Blood glucose monitoring, Insulin dose, or Insulin bolus calculation. The reason behind this was to look at more diabetes-specific mHealth apps. We also excluded studies conducted before 2010 as the first smartphone with modern-day capabilities was launched in 2007 and the corresponding application store was launched in 2008 [65]. This, along with 4G mobile communication services which were launched in 2010 [66], helped make mHealth apps easily accessible outside the research world [67]. In a 2012 survey study in the US conducted by Pew Research Centre, only two diabetes or blood sugar tracking apps were reported [68]. Considering these developments, we chose to limit the publication dates of included studies to the period 2010 to 2021.

All studies meeting our criteria were from high-income economies [50]. There is a lack of studies looking into type 1 diabetes in upper-middle income, lower-middle income, and low income economies. There could be variation in people’s need for diabetes self-care related mHealth app features as well as factors affecting use based on socioeconomic conditions prevalent in an area. Due to the above stated reasons, our findings cannot be generalised to populations outside high-income economies.


We found that self-care data monitoring features are the most commonly used features on mHealth apps among people with type 1 diabetes. Personal factors and app design factors were commonly found to affect mHealth app use from perspectives of people with type 1 diabetes. Only two studies reported significant improvement in any of the PROMs used in studies. We are unable to come to a strong conclusive result in any of our three research questions due to the limited number of studies reporting on these aspects among people with type 1 diabetes, as well as the heterogeneity of the studies. We therefore recommend further large-scale studies in these areas focusing on perspectives of people with type 1 diabetes that can ultimately improve mHealth app use for self-care.

Availability of data and materials

All the data and materials generated during this study are included in this paper or as supplementary files to this paper.



Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists




Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature


Hemoglobin A1C or Glycated hemoglobin


Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

mHeath apps:

Mobile health applications


Patient reported outcome measures


The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews


World health organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform


4Th generation


  1. Global report on diabetes. WHO. Geneva. 2016. Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

  2. Nationella riktlinjer för diabetesvård-Stöd för styrning och ledning. Socialstyrelsen. Stockholm. 2018. Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

  3. Lind M, Svensson A-M, Kosiborod M, Gudbjörnsdottir S, Pivodic A, Wedel H, Dahlqvist S, Clements M, Rosengren A. Glycemic control and excess mortality in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1972–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nathan DM, for the DERG. The diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. American Diabetes Association. Lifestyle management. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(Suppl 1):S33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Riegel B, Jaarsma T, Strömberg A. A middle-range theory of self-care of chronic illness. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2012;35(3):194–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Richard AA, Shea K. Delineation of self-care and associated concepts. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2011;43(3):255–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Matarese M, Lommi M, De Marinis MG, Riegel B. A systematic review and integration of concept analyses of self-care and related concepts. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2018;50(3):296–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilde MH, Garvin S. A concept analysis of self-monitoring. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(3):339–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. ADCES7 Self-Care Behaviors. Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists. Chicago. 2020. Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

  11. Chatterjee S, Davies MJ. Current management of diabetes mellitus and future directions in care. Postgrad Medical J. 2015;91(1081):612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(Suppl 1):S77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bonoto BC, de Araujo VE, Godoi IP, de Lemos LL, Godman B, Bennie M, Diniz LM, Junior AA. Efficacy of mobile apps to support the care of patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(3):e4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Toschi E, Fisher L, Wolpert H, Love M, Dunn T, Hayter G. Evaluating a glucose-sensor-based tool to help clinicians and adults with type 1 diabetes improve self-management skills. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(6):1143–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Waki K, Fujita H, Uchimura Y, Omae K, Aramaki E, Kato S, Lee H, Kobayashi H, Kadowaki T, Ohe K. DialBetics: a novel smartphone-based self-management support system for type 2 diabetes patients. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(2):209–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu Y, Yao X, Vespasiani G, Nicolucci A, Dong Y, Kwong J, Li L, Sun X, Tian H, Li S. Mobile app-based interventions to support diabetes self-management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to identify functions associated with glycemic efficacy. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(3):e35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lithgow K, Edwards A, Rabi D. Smartphone app use for diabetes management: evaluating patient perspectives. JMIR Diabetes. 2017;2(1):e2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Koot D, Goh PSC, Lim RSM, Tian Y, Yau TY, Tan NC, Finkelstein EA. A Mobile Lifestyle Management Program (GlycoLeap) for people with type 2 diabetes: single-arm feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(5):e12965.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Böhm AK, Jensen ML, Sørensen MR, Stargardt T. Real-world evidence of user engagement with mobile health for diabetes management: longitudinal observational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(11):e22212.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Peng W, Yuan S, Holtz BE. Exploring the challenges and opportunities of health mobile apps for individuals with type 2 diabetes living in rural communities. Telemed J E Health. 2016;22(9):733–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jeffrey B, Bagala M, Creighton A, Leavey T, Nicholls S, Wood C, Longman J, Barker J, Pit S. Mobile phone applications and their use in the self-management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a qualitative study among app users and non-app users. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2019;11:84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fu H, McMahon SK, Gross CR, Adam TJ, Wyman JF. Usability and clinical efficacy of diabetes mobile applications for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;131:70–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Whittemore R. Combining evidence in nursing research: methods and implications. Nurs Res. 2005;54(1):56–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J CM, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane; 2021.

  25. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Boyle L, Grainger R, Hall RM, Krebs JD. Use of and beliefs about mobile phone apps for diabetes self-management: surveys of people in a hospital diabetes clinic and diabetes health professionals in New Zealand. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(6):e85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Di Bartolo P, Nicolucci A, Cherubini V, Iafusco D, Scardapane M, Rossi MC. Young patients with type 1 diabetes poorly controlled and poorly compliant with self-monitoring of blood glucose: can technology help? Results of the i-NewTrend randomized clinical trial. Acta Diabetol. 2017;54(4):393–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Drion I, Pameijer LR, van Dijk PR, Groenier KH, Kleefstra N, Bilo HJ. The effects of a mobile phone application on quality of life in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(5):1086–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Feuerstein-Simon C, Bzdick S, Padmanabhuni A, Bains P, Roe C, Weinstock RS. Use of a smartphone application to reduce hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(6):1192–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Jeon E, Park HA. Experiences of patients with a diabetes self-care app developed based on the information-motivation-behavioral skills model: before-and-after study. JMIR Diabetes. 2019;4(2):e11590.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kirwan M, Vandelanotte C, Fenning A, Duncan MJ. Diabetes self-management smartphone application for adults with type 1 diabetes: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(11):e235.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Knight BA, McIntyre HD, Hickman IJ, Noud M. Qualitative assessment of user experiences of a novel smart phone application designed to support flexible intensive insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Mora P, Buskirk A, Lyden M, Parkin CG, Borsa L, Petersen B. Use of a novel, remotely connected diabetes management system is associated with increased treatment satisfaction, reduced diabetes distress, and improved glycemic control in individuals with insulin-treated diabetes: first results from the personal diabetes management study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(12):715–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ritholz MD, Henn O, Atakov Castillo A, Wolpert H, Edwards S, Fisher L, Toschi E. Experiences of adults with type 1 diabetes using glucose sensor-based mobile technology for glycemic variability: qualitative study. JMIR Diabetes. 2019;4(3):e14032.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Skrovseth SO, Arsand E, Godtliebsen F, Hartvigsen G. Mobile phone-based pattern recognition and data analysis for patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14(12):1098–104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Tack CJ, Lancee GJ, Heeren B, Engelen LJ, Hendriks S, Zimmerman L, De Massari D, van Gelder MM, van de Belt TH. Glucose control, disease burden, and educational gaps in people with type 1 diabetes: exploratory study of an integrated mobile diabetes app. JMIR diabetes. 2018;3(4):e17–e17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Trawley S, Baptista S, Browne JL, Pouwer F, Speight J. The use of mobile applications among adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: results from the second MILESAustralia (MILES-2) Study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(12):730–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zahed K, Sasangohar F, Mehta R, Erraguntla M, Qaraqe K. Diabetes Management Experience and the State of Hypoglycemia: National Online Survey Study. JMIR Diabetes. 2020;5(2):e17890.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Arsand E, Muzny M, Bradway M, Muzik J, Hartvigsen G. Performance of the first combined smartwatch and smartphone diabetes diary application study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(3):556–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N, Roen K, Duffy S. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. 2006. Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

  42. Ye Q, Khan U, Boren SA, Simoes EJ, Kim MS. An analysis of diabetes mobile applications features compared to AADE7: addressing self-management behaviors in people with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(4):808–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. WHO guideline on self-care interventions for health and well-being. WHO. Geneva. 2021. Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

  44. Izahar S, Lean QY, Hameed MA, Murugiah MK, Patel RP, Al-Worafi YM, Wong TW, Ming LC. Content analysis of mobile health applications on diabetes mellitus. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2017;8:318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Triantafyllidis A, Kondylakis H, Votis K, Tzovaras D, Maglaveras N, Rahimi K. Features, outcomes, and challenges in mobile health interventions for patients living with chronic diseases: A review of systematic reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2019; 132: doi:

  46. Debon R, Coleone JD, Bellei EA, Bertoletti De Marchi AC. Mobile health applications for chronic diseases: a systematic review of features for lifestyle improvement. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019;13(4):2507–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wei Y, Zheng P, Deng H, Wang X, Li X, Fu H. Design features for improving mobile health intervention user engagement: systematic review and thematic analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e21687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Macdonald EM, Perrin BM, Kingsley MI. Enablers and barriers to using two-way information technology in the management of adults with diabetes: a descriptive systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(5):319–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang C, Qi H. Influencing factors of acceptance and use behavior of mobile health application users: systematic review. Healthcare. 2021;9(3):357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. The World Bank group. Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

  51. Meadows KA. Patient-reported outcome measures: an overview. Br J Community Nurs. 2011;16(3):146–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Borg S, Palaszewski B, Gerdtham UG, Fredrik O, Roos P, Gudbjornsdottir S. Patient-reported outcome measures and risk factors in a quality registry: a basis for more patient-centered diabetes care in Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(12):12223–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Nilsson K, Bååthe F, Andersson AE, Wikström E, Sandoff M. Experiences from implementing value-based healthcare at a Swedish University Hospital – a longitudinal interview study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Baumhauer JF, Bozic KJ. Value-based healthcare: patient-reported outcomes in clinical decision making. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(6):1375–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Wee PJL, Kwan YH, Loh DHF, Phang JK, Puar TH, Østbye T, Thumboo J, Yoon S, Low LL. Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for diabetes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(8): e25002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. The ICHOM Set of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures for Adults who live with type 1 and 2 Diabetes. . The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

  57. Veazie S, Winchell K, Gilbert J, Paynter R, Ivlev I, Eden KB, Nussbaum K, Weiskopf N, Guise JM, Helfand M. Rapid evidence review of mobile applications for self-management of diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(7):1167–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. He Q, Zhao X, Wang Y, Xie Q, Cheng L. Effectiveness of smartphone application–based self-management interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Adv Nurs. 2021;00:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Aminuddin HB, Jiao N, Jiang Y, Hong J, Wang W. Effectiveness of smartphone-based self-management interventions on self-efficacy, self-care activities, health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;116:103286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Health in 2015: from MDGs, Millennium Development Goals to SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. . WHO. Geneva. 2015. Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

  61. Wang X, Shu W, Du J, Du M, Wang P, Xue M, Zheng H, Jiang Y, Yin S, Liang D, et al. Mobile health in the management of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Endocr Disord. 2019;19(1):21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Meffen A, Houghton JSM, Nickinson ATO, Pepper CJ, Sayers RD, Gray LJ. Understanding variations in reported epidemiology of major lower extremity amputation in the UK: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e053599.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Andrade CAS, Paz JLC, de Melo GS, Mahrouseh N, Januário AL, Capeletti LR. Survival rate and peri-implant evaluation of immediately loaded dental implants in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021: doi:

  64. Belay DM, Bayih WA, Alemu AY, Ayele AS, Mekonen DK, Birhane BM. Stillbirth Among Patients With Diabetes in Pregnancy in Ethiopia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Pediatr. 2021; 9(752): doi:

  65. Campbell-Kelly M, Garcia-Swartz DD. From Mainframes to Smartphones: A History of the International Computer Industry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2015.

  66. Mshvidobadze T. Evolution mobile wireless communication and LTE networks. In: 2012 6th International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT): 17–19 October 2012; Tbilisi, Georgia: IEEE; 2012: 1–7.

  67. Istepanian RS, Woodward B. M-health: Fundamentals and Applications. Hoboken: John; 2016.

  68. Mobile Health. Susannah Fox, Maeve Duggan. 2012. Accessed 14 Apr 2022.

Download references


We would like to thank our librarian, Annelie Ekberg-Andersson for guiding us with the search strategy.


Open access funding provided by Karlstad University. Karlstad University & Region Värmland has equally funded this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



DS, AN, JN and MP was involved in designing the study, data screening, data extraction, analysis and writing of this manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

All authors involved in this study are employed by Karlstad University, Sweden. In addition, Jan Nilsson is also employed by the Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences and Anna Nordin by Lulea University of Technology. Jan Nilsson is also a board member of Sigma Theta Tau omega chapter.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Divya Anna Stephen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This integrative review study does not involve any new data collection from human participants. Therefore, ethical clearance is not deemed necessary as this study falls outside the scope of Swedish law on ethical review of research involving human subjects (SFS 2003:460). Exemption to ethical clearance was registered with the institutional review board at Karlstad University (HNT 2020/578). We have not involved any human participants and therefore no informed consent was taken. We have added a column to show whether individual included studies took ethical clearance in supplementary table S2.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that we have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stephen, D.A., Nordin, A., Nilsson, J. et al. Using mHealth applications for self-care – An integrative review on perceptions among adults with type 1 diabetes. BMC Endocr Disord 22, 138 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: