Skip to main content
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Consideration of inequalities in effectiveness trials of mHealth applications – a systematic assessment of studies from an umbrella review

Abstract

Background

The growing use of mobile health applications (apps) for managing diabetes and hypertension entails an increased need to understand their effectiveness among different population groups. It is unclear if efficacy and effectiveness trials currently provide evidence of differential effectiveness, and if they do, a summary of such evidence is missing. Our study identified to what extent sociocultural and socioeconomic inequalities were considered in effectiveness trials of mobile health apps in diabetic and hypertensive patients and if these inequalities moderated app effectiveness.

Methods

We built on our recent umbrella review that synthesized systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of health apps. Using standard SR methodologies, we identified and assessed all primary RCTs from these SRs that focused on diabetes and/or hypertension and reported on health-related outcomes and inequality-related characteristics across intervention arms. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to define inequality-related characteristics that affect health opportunities and outcomes. We used harvest plots to summarize the subgroups (stratified analyses or interaction terms) on moderating effects of PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.

Results

We included 72 published articles of 65 unique RCTs. Gender, age, and education were the most frequently described PROGRESS-Plus characteristics at baseline in more than half of the studies. Ethnicity and occupation followed in 21 and 15 RCTs, respectively. Seven trials investigated the moderating effect of age, gender or ethnicity on app effectiveness through subgroup analyses. Results were equivocal and covered a heterogenous set of outcomes. Results showed some concerns for a high risk of bias, mostly because participants could not be blinded to their intervention allocation.

Conclusions

Besides frequently available gender, age, and education descriptives, other relevant sociocultural or socioeconomic characteristics were neither sufficiently reported nor analyzed. We encourage researchers to investigate how these characteristics moderate the effectiveness of health apps to better understand how effect heterogeneity for apps across different sociocultural or socioeconomic groups affects inequalities, to support more equitable management of non-communicable diseases in increasingly digitalized systems.

Registration

https://osf.io/89dhy/.

Background

The increasing use of mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) entails a growing focus on evidence regarding their effectiveness. Several systematic reviews (SRs) suggest that using mHealth apps may be effective in chronic disease management through improving medication adherence, physical functioning, and other health outcomes [1, 2]. Such evidence reinforces ongoing policy efforts to integrate mHealth apps as a delivery channel of healthcare services [3]. A concrete example is Germany’s recently established Digital Health Applications (DiGA) system, which allows doctors to prescribe apps through the public health insurance scheme to complement standard disease treatment and management [4]. However, it remains unclear if mHealth app effectiveness generalizes equally to different population subgroups with heterogenous sociocultural and socioeconomic characteristics. With health equity recognized as one crucial performance indicator for health systems [5], political decision-makers should ask if mHealth app integration into standard care can be expected to increase or alleviate existing health inequalities and health inequities [6] and be ready to take measures to mitigate unintended equity consequences, if needed.

Diabetes and hypertension are two highly prevalent and socially unequally distributed chronic conditions [7] for which evidence of the overall effectiveness of mHealth apps exists [8, 9]. In 2019, diabetes contributed to 70.9 million (2.8%) Disability Adjusted Life years (DALYs) globally [10] and, in 2020, was ranked ninth by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the leading causes of death [11]. Hypertension, the silent killer [12], is a significant risk factor for cardiac diseases and the leading risk factor in hypertensive heart diseases [13, 14].

Patients can self-manage both diseases with proper monitoring, education, and awareness, making mHealth interventions promising support tools [15]. Therefore, integrating digital health technologies into standard diabetes and hypertension care could enhance equity and socio-economic inclusion [16, 17]. Unlike conventional in-person healthcare, using mHealth for disease management and treatment may come with less commuting and waiting time, fewer physical and transportation obstacles to access healthcare, particularly serving people with disabilities, and lower commuting costs, mainly serving people of low socio-economic status [17].

The epidemiology of diabetes and hypertension is already strongly associated with social determinants of health (SDOH); both are more prevalent and entail more and worse complications in disadvantaged communities [18, 19]. Relevant predictors of increased diabetes risk are low socioeconomic position (SEP) (expressed in education, income, or occupation), racism, deprived neighborhoods (housing conditions), and detrimental food access and food insecurity [18]. Diabetes also lowers and negatively affects the engagement of patients in the labor market [20]. Similarly, ethnicity, discrimination, racism, and lower education have been linked to worsened hypertension [19]. Lack of health insurance can additionally limit healthcare access and thereby limit monitoring and controlling of these diseases [18, 19, 21, 22]. Diabetic and hypertensive patients are at a higher risk of suffering a disability [20], limiting their access to healthcare and increasing their risk of suffering discrimination and becoming socially vulnerable [23].

Three types of digital divide could materialize if already deprived groups additionally encounter less access to (first), usage of (second), and benefits from usage of (third) digital health technology [24]. Although declining, there are still variations in (affordable) access to the internet between different regions, countries, and cities [25, 26]. Even if equal access is provided to internet and health technologies, take-up and utilization patterns differ among socially more and less disadvantaged groups [17, 24]. For example, digital exclusion is more manifested among individuals of older age, with a disability, with low income, with low education, or living in rural areas [17]. Lastly, even in the presence of equal access and take-up, the amount of benefit an individual can realize through using digital health technologies may depend on social factors. For example, in the Grossman model education increases marginal productivity of inputs (e.g. information communicated mHealth apps) into health production (suggesting potentially higher health benefits from usage in individuals with higher education or health literacy) [27]. On the other hand, the availability and accessibility of (in-person) health services in urban areas may result in reduced in marginal benefit from additional usage of health technologies compared to rural areas where such technologies may not act as an adjunct, but in some instances as the only available healthcare delivery channel.

As a consequence, mHealth apps have the potential to reinforce or reduce existing health inequalities. Therefore, scientific evidence on differential app effectiveness (inequalities in benefit) is a prerequisite for political decision-makers attempting to improve or ensure equity through political measures.

In this systematic assessment, we explored to what extent effect heterogeneity across sociocultural and socioeconomic characteristics that might increase or decrease health inequalities is considered in trials investigating the effectiveness of mHealth apps on health outcomes in patients with diabetes and/or hypertension. Firstly, we identified and summarized which factors representing inequalities were reported in these studies, either descriptively or through subgroup analyses. Secondly, we assessed, summarized, and synthesized how and to what extent these inequality factors moderate the effectiveness of health apps.

Methods

Our study design, which we refer to as a systematic assessment, is largely akin to a SR. Our only deviation from the traditional SR methods relates to how we identified potential eligible studies, i.e. the search strategy. While a traditional SR generally conducts primary searches within electronic databases to identify potentially eligible studies, we followed a previously described approach [28] and used the included studies of existing and related SRs as the pool of potentially eligible studies. We identified these relevant systematic reviews through the conduct of our recently published umbrella review [29], which identified and mapped available SRs of RCTs on mHealth app effectiveness across various disease indications. This systematic assessment approach follows the work of others and emphasizes efficiency and the responsible use of research resources (i.e. building on rather than duplicating existing research). More detail on how these potentially eligible studies were identified, as well as the other methods, are described in detail below after the “Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria”.

We followed a pre-defined publicly available protocol [30] and existing methodological guidelines for conducting and reporting SRs, including the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - Equity (PRISMA-E) extension [31] (Additional file1).

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

Our eligibility criteria (Additional file2) were based on the population (patients with diabetes and/or hypertension), intervention (mHealth app), comparator (any), and study design (RCTs) (PICOS) framework [32].

Following previous studies [28, 33,34,35] and methodological recommendations [36], we defined inequality characteristics using the PROGRESS-Plus framework [37]. PROGRESS stands for place of residence, religion, occupation, gender, race/ethnicity, education, SEP, and social networks/capital, and Plus for age, disability, sexual orientation, and context-specific additional factors [37]. For this study, we included insurance status as a Plus characteristic.

Identification of potentially eligible studies

The search from the umbrella review, which aimed to identify all SRs of RCTs on mHealth app effectiveness across various disease indications, was concluded on 28 August 2023. From these SRs, we used backward citation searches to identify all underlying primary RCTs that focused on diabetes (all types) and/or hypertension.

Where primary studies could not be identified (i.e. where a SR did not provide the full references of all included studies), we contacted the SR’s corresponding authors to obtain the references. Where contact attempts remained unsuccessful, we cross-checked the names of the primary RCT’s authors and the publication years mentioned in the SR with studies cited in other relevant SRs with the same author names and years. Where such cross-checks remained unsuccessful, we additionally used PubMed and Google Scholar to identify the full reference of the remaining studies with incomplete citations via their available author-year combinations.

Study selection

Given the small pool of potentially eligible studies, we combined the title and abstract screening with the full-text screening stage into one screening and selection step of the full text of the studies. After deduplication, the primary reviewer (NA) screened all primary studies for eligibility. A second reviewer (LS, AJS, GM, or NOK) verified these decisions. We used Microsoft Excel [38] to facilitate this process.

Data extraction strategy

From the selected studies, we extracted details on the population, intervention, control, outcome(s), and sample sizes at baseline for each RCT. We extracted the reported PROGRESS-Plus-related descriptives from all studies. Additionally, for RCTs that conducted subgroup analyses on PROGRESS-Plus characteristics, we extracted sample size for intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, the type of subgroup analysis (interaction terms between the intervention and subgroup, or stratified analysis of the intervention effect within each subgroup) and the respective effect estimates. Adjusted overall effect estimates were additionally extracted for outcomes with PROGRESS-Plus subgroup analyses. The primary reviewer (NA) extracted all data, and a second reviewer (AJS, GM, or NOK) double-checked the extraction.

Study quality assessment

We assessed the quality of studies that conducted subgroup analyses for PROGRESS-Plus characteristics. Although effect heterogeneity may not be influenced by the bias in the overall outcome/effect estimate, we aimed to understand if and how far the overall health outcomes that were included in subgroup analyses were biased. To do so, we used the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool, which assesses RoB at the outcome level [39]. We based this assessment on the respective overall outcome, not on the outcome specific to the subgroup analysis.

We used separate tools for individually-randomized parallel and cluster-randomized RCTs as recommended and followed the available guidance documents to answer the signaling questions [39]. Two reviewers (NA and LS) independently assessed the RoB of all the outcomes and compared their assessments for consensus. In cases of differences, AJS and JB were available for consolidation. Additional information on the tool and decision rules supporting the assessment are outlined in Additional file3.

Data synthesis and presentation

We narratively summarized the main characteristics of the included studies. Subsequently, we created bar charts presenting the number of studies that covered each PROGRESS-Plus characteristic in their baseline descriptives or through subgroup analyses. For each PROGRESS-Plus characteristic, we additionally summarized and compared its distribution across study samples in tables and figures. For categorical variables, we reported numbers and percentages; for continuous variables that could be presented consistently across studies, we calculated the minimum, maximum, mean, and median. Additional file4 details how we harmonized the PROGRESS-Plus descriptives across studies and analyzed their distribution.

The results of PROGRESS-Plus subgroup analyses were visualized using harvest plots as one of the methods recommended by Cochrane for synthesis without a meta-analysis (SWiM) [40, 41]. Of note, harvest plots visualize effect directions and the relative size of effect estimates without considering the statistical significance of a result [40]. For the summary of subgroup analyses, we used the phrasing of the PROGRESS-Plus levels as reported in the respective original study. The harvest plots display sections for each PROGRESS-Plus characteristic (e.g., gender), the health outcomes (e.g., HbA1c), and the months after which the outcome changed. Additional file5 further visualizes and explains the interpretation of the harvest plot.

Results

Identification and selection of studies

Of the 48 SRs in the umbrella review [29], 24 included at least one study on diabetes or hypertension populations. The search strategies from these 24 systematic reviews encompassed 30 databases: Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, Embase, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China biology medicine database, Wanfang, Sinomed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Koreamed, KMbase, ScienceOn, Elsevier, SAGE, Science Direct, Taylor & Francis, IEEE XPLORE, Academic Research Premier, BVSalud, EBSCO, The Joanna Briggs Institute Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature, and Clinical Trials.

Three reviews did not cite their 54 primary studies [42,43,44], and the corresponding authors did not reply to our respective inquiries. Yet, we could identify most studies by author and year, leaving four unidentifiable records.

In total, we extracted 298 records from the umbrella review, of which 170 were duplicates and 18 unidentifiable records. We retrieved the remaining 110 primary studies and assessed their eligibility. This resulted in including 72 published articles which reported on 65 unique RCTs (Fig. 1).

A list of the 24 SRs and the excluded primary RCTs with reasons is provided in Additional file6.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA [45] flow diagram of Identified and Included Studies. Notes1 Although excluded studies may have met more than one exclusion criterion, the screening process stopped for a study once the first exclusion criterion was identified, and only this exclusion criterion was recorded. Abbreviations app: application; RCT: randomized controlled trial

Characteristics of included studies

Included articles were published between 2009 and 2020, with most publications in 2019 (n = 17). The most frequent countries where the studies took place were the United States (US) (n = 14), China (n = 9), and Canada (n = 5). Most studies (n = 59) were conducted in high-income countries [46], four in lower-middle-income countries [47,48,49,50,51], two in upper-middle-income countries [52, 53], and none in low-income countries. Figure 2 illustrates this geographical distribution.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Map of the countries covered in the 66 studies, created using MapChart [54]. Notes United States (n = 14) [55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]; China (n = 9) [71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]; Canada (n = 5) [80,81,82,83,84]; United Kingdom (n = 4 [United Kingdom = 3 [85,86,87,88], England = 1 [89, 90]]); South Korea (n = 3) [91,92,93]; Spain (n = 3) [89, 90, 94,95,96]; Italy (n = 3) [89, 90, 97, 98]; Singapore (n = 2) [99, 100]; France (n = 2) [101, 102]; Norway (n = 2) [103,104,105]; Saudi Arabia (n = 2) [106, 107]; Netherlands (n = 2) [108, 109]; Australia (n = 2) [110, 111]; Finland (n = 1) [112]; Switzerland (n = 1) [113]; Austria (n = 1) [114]; Mexico (n = 1) [52]; Germany (n = 1) [115]; Sri Lanka (n = 1) [47]; Poland (n = 1) [116]; Japan (n = 1) [117]; Ghana (n = 1) [50, 51]; Taiwan (n = 1) [71]; Denmark (n = 1) [118]; Greece (n = 1) [119]; India (n = 1) [48]; Indonesia (n = 1) [49]; Malaysia (n = 1) [53]. Rossi et al. [89, 90] took place in England, Spain, and Italy, therefore it is counted 3 times

Out of n = 72 articles (65 unique RCTs with 7796 individuals, mean and median of the number of participants are 120 and 85 respectively); n = 58 focused on diabetes (n = 51 unique RCTs with 5815 individuals), n = 10 on hypertension (n = 9 unique RCTs with 1622 individuals) [50, 51, 56, 57, 63,64,65, 70, 72, 96] and n = 4 on diabetes and/or hypertension (359 individuals) [59, 73, 82, 114].

The RCTs focusing on diabetes included n = 14 on T1DM [60, 61, 81, 84, 89, 97, 101, 105, 109, 111, 113, 115, 118, 119], n = 32 on T2DM (one of which had overweight/obese patients [75]), five without a specification of diabetes type [47, 78, 79, 85, 87], and none focused on gestational diabetes. Two RCTs of the n = 9 on hypertension included hypertensive stroke survivors [50, 51, 63].

Diabetes studies reported on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), self-efficacy and self-care, biomarkers, anthropometric, behavioral, and psychological outcomes. Healthcare utilization was reported five times [66, 75, 85, 101, 118] and medication prescription changes once [66, 67]. Hypertension studies reported on blood pressure, medication adherence, consumption of sodium, and other types of food. Studies on both diseases reported on blood pressure, HbA1c, anxiety, and depression [59, 73, 82, 114]. All studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus descriptive and seven reported PROGRESS-Plus-relevant subgroup analyses [48, 64, 65, 68, 93, 97, 110].

Additional file7 includes a study-level summary of study designs, diseases, sample sizes, and follow-up time points. Additional file8 contains a study-level summary of the interventions and apps, their functions, the devices used, and comparison groups. Additional file9 includes a summary of the outcomes and overall effect estimates for outcomes further assessed in subgroup analyses.

Study quality assessment

We assessed RoB for 11 outcomes included with PROGRESS-Plus subgroup analyses. Eight outcomes stem from five individually-randomized parallel RCTs (HbA1c [n = 3], compliance with self-monitoring of blood glucose [n = 1], health-related quality of life [HRQoL] [n = 1], medication adherence [n = 1], and systolic blood pressure [SBP] [n = 2]) [48, 64, 65, 97, 110], and three outcomes from two cluster-randomized parallel RCTs (HbA1c [n = 2] and fasting plasma glucose [FPG] [n = 1]) [68, 93]. All studies were judged as having some or a high risk of bias as participants were unblinded to their allocation. Some studies lacked information regarding blinded outcome assessors or had self-reported outcomes by the participants who were unblinded [64, 66, 68, 110]. The randomization domain had some RoB in cluster RCTs as allocation was not always clearly concealed until after recruitment [93]. Further RoB2 results and figures can be found in Additional file10.

Reported PROGRESS-Plus characteristics

The most frequently reported PROGRESS-Plus descriptives were age, gender, and education (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Number of unique RCTs and articles reporting on PROGRESS-Plus Characteristics. Notes Abbreviations SEP: socioeconomic position

One RCT reported participant shares with urban and rural (58% vs. 42% respectively) places of residence [50, 51]. Another RCT reported the living conditions of the participants; more than half had between four and five rooms (54%), while the rest had less [100].

Ethnicity and/or race descriptives were reported in n = 21 studies (see Table 1 in Additional file 11 for more details and descriptive analysis). Shares of participants from an ethnic minority ranged from 0% [88] to 100% [55, 56] (Fig. 4). Six RCTs explicitly targeted minority/underserved populations [55, 56, 69, 70, 83, 87]. One RCT in the US reported on the language of the participants and 48% spoke English at home [85, 86].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Percentages of ethnic/racial minorities in the RCTs. Notes Dorsch et al. [57], Frias et al. [59], Persell et al. [65], Wang et al. [69], and Zha et al. [70] reported on both ethnicity and race, and race is what is illustrated in the figure as it included more subgroups

Fifteen studies [49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 59, 69, 71, 78, 83, 92, 94, 97, 103, 110] reported on the occupational status of the participants (see Table 2 in Additional file 11 for more details and descriptive analysis). Shares of employed participants ranged from 13 to 83% (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Distribution of occupational statuses in the RCTs. Notes Percentages might not add up to 100% due to approximation of decimal numbers. Gong et al. [110] reports 14.4% under unemployed or other combined, and the graph illustrates them under unemployed

Of the 61 studies reporting on gender (see Table 3 in Additional file 11 for more details and descriptive analysis), approximately two-thirds of studies (40 of 61) included percentages of males or females ranging between 40% and 60% (Fig. 6). The RCT with the lowest number of males was a pilot study in a community center in Newark, US, and 88% of the participants were women [70]. The study with the highest male percentage (90%) was also in the US and focused on veterans [58].

Fig. 6
figure 6

Gender percentages reported in the RCTs. Notes Percentages might not add up to 100% due to approximation of decimal numbers

Religion was mentioned in one study from Malaysia. All participants were Muslims with diabetes who were fasting during the month of Ramadan [53].

Educational levels of participants were reported in 35 studies and were inconsistently reported across the studies (see Table 4 in Additional file 11 for more details and descriptive analysis). One study had solely highly educated participants [55].

All nine studies reporting on social capital had more than half of the participants married or living with someone (see Fig. 7 below and Table 5 in Additional file 11 for more details and descriptive analysis).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Social network/capital percentages of participants in the RCTs

Seven studies reported on the income of their participants (see Table 6 in Additional file 11 for more details and descriptive analysis) [50, 56, 59, 69, 80, 83, 100]. One study additionally reported that 50% of participants had no access to a car [83]. Two studies mainly targeted participants of lower income or SEP [69, 83].

In the 64 studies reporting on age, it ranged between 45 and 70 years in the studies of T2DM, diabetes of any type, hypertension, and both diseases (see Table 7 in Additional file 11 for more details and descriptive analysis). The participants in the studies focusing on T1DM were between 13 and 40 years (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Mean age in the RCTs

Disability was reported twice. One study had 10.5% of the participants with a learning disability or mental health condition [118], and another had 31% categorized as disabled or unable to work [69].

Four studies reported their participants’ health insurance status [61, 66, 69, 83]. In a study from Canada, all participants were publicly insured [83]. The others took place in the US, with all participants privately insured [66], 22% insured by Medicare [69], and 26% publicly insured [61] in one study each.

Reported subgroup analyses with PROGRESS-Plus

Seven studies reported subgroup analyses for mHealth app effectiveness with regard to at least one of three PROGRESS-Plus characteristics (ethnicity, gender, and age) [48, 64, 65, 68, 93, 97, 110]. Only for gender and age, respective subgroup analyses were available from more than one RCT, with effect estimates showing no general tendency toward a particular subgroup in either characteristic. Four subgroup analyses showed better health outcomes in females [64, 93, 97, 110] and five in males [64, 65, 93, 97, 110]. Five subgroup analyses showed better health outcomes in older individuals [64, 65, 97, 110] and five in younger individuals [64, 68, 93, 110]. There was a singular subgroup analysis for ethnicity; SBP improved in non-Black participants [65]. These results are visualized in the harvest plots in Fig. 9, and further details about concrete effect estimates, their statistical significance, and the type of subgroup analysis are in Table 1.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Harvest plot of the reported subgroup analyses. Notes The harvest plot illustrates the subgroup analyses. The position of the bar shows the tendency of the effect of mHealth towards a particular subgroup. The color of the bar shows the effect direction in the subgroups, whether both benefitted, both were harmed, or one was harmed and the other benefitted. The numbers inside the bars are the reference numbers of the studies. The italic numbers at the bottom of the bars are the months at which the outcome effect was measured. The harvest plot does not include the category “No difference between subgroups,” as illustrated in Additional file 5, because it was never met. Of note, harvest plots do not take into consideration the statistical significance of the effect estimates. Abbreviations FPG: fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; HRQoL: health-related quality of life; m: months; SBP: systolic blood pressure

Table 1 Summary of the mHealth app effectiveness outcomes and subgroups analyses with PROGRESS-Plus (N = 7 studies)

Discussion

Summary of findings

Our systematic assessment of 65 effectiveness trials investigating mHealth app effectiveness among diabetic and hypertensive patients showed that descriptions of the study population regarding inequality-relevant characteristics are currently heterogeneous and often incomplete. Even though, judging from the reported descriptives, most studies did collect information on at least some relevant inequality factors in their recruited patient samples, they rarely used this information to investigate differential effectiveness. Age and gender were by far most frequently reported, with mostly expected distributions, followed by education, ethnicity, and occupation. In contrast, descriptives for social capital, SEP, insurance status, place of residence, religion, and disability were rare, and for sexual orientation were never reported. This lack of appropriate descriptions of the underlying study population makes it difficult to assess to which extent those RCTs adequately represent potentially vulnerable population subgroups. Furthermore, the countries with a higher burden of both diseases are low- and middle-income countries [120, 121], yet most of the RCTs we identified took place in high-income countries and none in low-income countries. This leaves evidence gaps for some of the most vulnerable populations [122, 123]. Only seven of the 65 studies reported inequality-related subgroup analyses for mHealth app effectiveness, mostly by gender and age, with a singular analysis by ethnicity.

General user profiles for mHeath apps were previously reported to be younger, better educated, and with higher income [124]. These profiles somehow match the frequencies of our three most reported characteristics of the participants which were age, gender, and education, and the most analyzed in subgroup analyses which was age. This shows the interest in understanding the generalizability and heterogeneity of the results among the presumably most relevant moderators.

It is noteworthy that the place of residence, ethnicity, social networks/capital, income, and insurance status were insufficiently or rarely evaluated as potential effect moderators. This may in part be because these subpopulations have lower access to mHealth care and, therefore, may have been underrepresented in our pool of studies which included only populations with access to mHealth. Specifically, because mHealth apps are heralded as bridging geographical, social, and financial barriers, it should be in the interest of app developers, policy makers, health service providers, and patients to investigate if these aspirations are fulfilled. Similarly, disability should be considered a vital stratification factor, as mHealth promises to better cater and tailor services for people living with disabilities [17, 125]. However, disability was considered in only two studies. For religion and sexual orientation, on the other hand, which are relevant to many health inequalities, it seems more understandable that they were rarely investigated as there is little evidence to support the assumption that they specifically moderate mHealth effectiveness in diabetes and hypertension.

Our study primarily highlights the significant gap in considering relevant socioeconomic and sociocultural inequality characteristics among study populations, and a gap in analyzing these characteristics in subgroup analyses. Similar to other reviews assessing inequality/inequity factors using PROGRESS-Plus in diabetes care [34, 126, 127] and other health indications [28, 33, 35], inequality characteristics are overall currently not sufficiently considered in RCTs on mHealth app effectiveness. The frequencies of the characteristics match those reported in previous reviews [33, 34, 126, 127] except for place of residence, ethnicity and health insurance which were reported more in some reviews about diabetes care [34, 126, 127]. Our findings also match the findings of previous studies that show limited consideration of inequality characteristics through subgroup analyses [35], with gender and age being the most frequently analyzed [28, 33]. Although the subgroup analyses showed inconsistent and weak tendencies towards particular subgroups, adding an equity lens on the implications of these tendencies with respect to the disease burden/dominance among the subgroups is crucial in identifying health inequity concerns.

In gender and age subgroup analyses, mHealth app effectiveness did not tend towards particular subgroups. Regarding gender, SBP in hypertension and HbA1c in T1DM and T2DM improved in men with the use of mHealth [64, 65, 93, 97, 110], potentially alleviating their relatively higher disease burden in these conditions [19, 128,129,130,131]. On the one hand, more behavioral outcomes such as HRQoL, medication adherence, and compliance to self-monitoring of blood glucose were reported to improve with the use of mHealth among females than males. On the other hand, clinical outcomes such as HbA1c, FBG, and SBP seemed to improve with the use of mHealth among males rather than females. Worth noting that such heterogeneity in health outcomes, while justified and necessary to assess the extent of effectiveness of mHealth apps, challenges grouping the outcomes to compare and provide stronger evidence of differential effectiveness from subgroup analyses. Regarding age, diabetes control was slightly better among younger individuals using mHealth [68, 93, 110], which hints at potential inequity as the disease worsens with age [132, 133], and first and second digital divides (i.e. inequalities in access and use) already exist between older and younger individuals [17, 26].

Regarding other characteristics, a singular subgroup analysis [65] raised some inequity concerns as SBP increased with using an mHealth app in individuals of Black racial/ethnic backgrounds, who already suffer a higher disease burden of hypertension [134]. Surprisingly, no underserved populations under SEP, in terms of income, education, or employment, were included in the subgroup analyses.

Several studies had a RoB in the measurement of the outcomes included in subgroup analyses due to the nature of the intervention, as participants were not blinded to their allocation. The potential for selection bias could not be completely ruled out in parallel and cluster RCTs where recruitment of participants occurred after randomization.

As RCTs are not usually powered for subgroup analyses, no single RCT can provide definite evidence on differential effectiveness among individuals with different sociocultural and socioeconomic characteristics. However, such evidence on differential effectiveness of mHealth apps could be generated through meta-analyses of subgroup results, collected through systematic reviews or assessments such as ours. A necessary prerequisite is a sufficient number of RCTs conducts and reports stratified and subgroup analyses for those inequality characteristics. To date, this is not the case.

We cannot therefore provide a definitive answer to the question if inequality factors moderate the effectiveness of mHealth apps among diabetes and hypertensive patients. Moreover, we found that the potential for quantitative synthesis is currently hampered by the heterogeneity of outcome measures and PROGRESS Plus subgroup operationalizations. In practice, these knowledge gaps may continue to limit the evidence base for decision makers and healthcare providers to assess and mitigate the risk of increasing health inequalities in the face of ongoing digitalization of healthcare systems. This complements existing challenges hindering the expansion of mHealth public health interventions [135]. Ideally, evidence on all three digital divides (i.e. inequalities in access, use, and differential effectiveness) could jointly inform policy interventions aiming to ease access to and usage of mHealth apps and mitigating consequences of differential effectiveness. These interventions would result in better inclusion and benefit from mHealth usage across disadvantaged groups [136] and could include providing senior citizens with digital training, outreach to rural areas, Wi-Fi hotspots, or financial reimbursement [137].

Strengths and limitations

A main strength of this study is that we comprehensively assessed the consideration of inequality factors, particularly in RCTs of mHealth apps among specifically diabetic and hypertensive patients, while evaluating how these factors moderate the app’s effectiveness. Previous studies had different disease indications [28, 33, 138] or different interventions and study designs [34, 126, 127]. We also had a specific scope of choosing only studies with an app-based intervention and no other mHealth interventions such as text messages. Limiting the study design to RCTs was carried over from the umbrella review [29] and strengthened our evidence base, as RCTs are considered the gold standard for effectiveness research [139].

Our systematic assessment comes with limitations related to our conduct of the assessment and to the weaknesses of the included studies. Although limiting the study design to RCTs strengthens internal validity, it limits the external validity of the results. Moreover, RCTs are not usually meant for detecting inequalities; randomization usually ensures balanced characteristics of included patients across study arms, but RCTs might completely exclude or oversample certain populations. In our included RCTs all patients had access or were provided access to mHealth apps thereby limiting any insight into inequalities in access to and usage of mHealth apps (first and second digital divides, respectively) despite their undisputed relevance in the digital age. Thus, it should be noted that, per design, our study can only provide insights into inequalities in benefit of usage (third digital divide).

In the light of our unconventional study design, we refrain from calling our study a SR despite being aligned with the methodology of a SR in acknowledgement of our lack of a search strategy which is an integral part of a traditional systematic review. We aimed to increase the efficiency of the evidence generation process, as many systematic reviews on mHealth app effectiveness in diabetic and/or hypertensive patients have already been conducted with overlapping PICO criteria as our study. Implementing a separate search strategy to re-identify either the underlying RCTs or the existing systematic reviews of these RCTs from scratch would have, in our opinion, duplicated previous efforts without adding substantially to the evidence base. We believe our pool of studies was in the end comprehensive and covered most relevant studies on mHealth apps in diabetes and/or hypertensive patients. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that not conducting a search strategy might have slightly decreased the recency of included studies.

To keep our population coherent as the main users of the mHealth app in the intervention, we excluded a big cluster RCT in India with over 4000 participants because the app was used by the healthcare staff and not the patients [140]. The study also conducted several subgroup analyses on the improvement of HbA1c and SBP with place of residence (town type and population size), gender, education, and age. We moreover might have missed relevant studies since we based our studies only on the umbrella review SRs. For example, we excluded a borderline article that included several socio-economic characteristics of their participants (ethnicity, education, gender, social capital, income, age, and insurance) as it was a secondary analysis of an RCT [141], and the original RCT was not in our pool of identified studies. However, as the RCT population was not exclusively hypertensive and/or diabetic patients, in this particular case, the primary RCT would have been excluded even if it had been part of our pool of potentially eligible studies [142].

Regarding the included studies, several inconsistencies in reporting education, ethnicity, income, and other descriptives made analyses and general conclusions about the populations represented challenging. The inconsistency in the reporting of the educational status is especially limiting as education is a significant modifier pertaining to both SEP and the health literacy of the participants [17]. There was some selection bias in the studies that reported socioeconomic/sociocultural characteristics of the participants, as some specifically targeted underserved populations. Moreover, as participants could not be blinded to their intervention given its nature, this may have affected the internal validity of the studies. Unfortunately, no studies regarding gestational diabetes were identified, which leaves a gap in supporting pregnant women who might face different physical and psychological challenges from other diabetic groups, especially if they belong to a minority population and face discrimination [143,144,145].

Implications for future research

It would be useful to replicate our methodology and include an updated pool of RCTs on mHealth effectiveness while potentially focusing on the subgroup analyses of mHealth app effectiveness for PROGRESS-Plus. Conducting a meta-analysis could also be beneficial in deriving (in)equality conclusions. We call for more frequent consideration of subgroup analyses for inequality characteristics when conducting RCTs, as merely considering them descriptively is insufficient to derive equity/inequity conclusions [35]. We also join previous research in encouraging more multi-dimensional analyses combining several inequality/inequity factors in subgroup analyses to tackle intersectionality [35, 146].

Investigating inequality aspects of mHealth apps in other chronic diseases that could be self-managed, such as obesity or mental health diseases, is recommended, to assess their potential to lower the burden on the healthcare system [147]. We encourage adding more SDOH, such as health literacy [18, 19], which is an underlying factor challenging minority/underprivileged populations from properly using and benefitting from mHealth even when provided access [17, 24, 148]. Including other study types would also be interesting, taking into account real-world evidence with higher external validity [149]. Further research could additionally go beyond differential effectiveness of mHealth and explore the socioeconomic and sociocultural characteristics of users of apps in routine care (e.g. users of DiGa in Germany, mHealthBelgium in Belgium [150], or ApiApps in France [151]).

Conclusions

Our study reported on the considerations of inequalities and their moderation of the effectiveness of mHealth apps in 65 RCTs and 72 published articles. Our findings show a significant gap in the consideration of inequality factors whether as mere descriptives of the recruited populations or in subgroup analyses. If at all, the studies reported mainly descriptively on inequality factors but barely investigated differential effectiveness. We therefore were not able to conclude if inequality factors moderate mHealth app effectiveness among subgroups of diabetes and hypertensive patients. Our results showed that the age, gender, and education of participants were most frequently considered as descriptives of study populations, while information on sociocultural and socioeconomic characteristics was either lacking or insufficiently reported and analyzed. Subgroup analyses were few and sparse, not allowing for proper analysis of health inequalities mHealth app effectiveness. For future research, we encourage building on our study and analyzing more SDOH with respect to the effectiveness of mHealth apps both in diabetes and hypertension, and in other chronic health conditions.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this manuscript [and its additional files].

Abbreviations

App:

Application

CENTRAL:

Central Register of Controlled Trials

CI:

Confidence interval

CINAHL:

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

CNKI:

China NAtional Knowledge Infrastructure

DALY:

Disability-adjusted life year

DiGa:

Digital health applications

FPG:

Fasting plasma glucose

HbA1c:

Glycated hemoglobin

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

HTN:

Hypertension

ITT:

Intention-to-treat

LILACS:

Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature

mHealth:

Mobile health

MMAS:

Morisky medication adherence scale

N/A:

Not applicable

OSF:

Open Science Framework

PICOS:

Population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design

PRISMA:

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

RCT:

Randomized controlled trials

RoB:

Risk of Bias

SBP:

Systolic blood pressure

SDOH:

Social determinants of health

SEP:

Socioeconomic position

SES:

Socioeconomic status

SMBG:

Self-measurement of blood glucose

SR:

Systematic review

SWiM:

Synthesis without a meta-analysis

T1DM:

Type 1 diabetes mellitus

T2DM:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

US:

United States

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Lee J-A, Choi M, Lee SA, Jiang N. Effective behavioral intervention strategies using mobile health applications for chronic disease management: a systematic review. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0591-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Arkee S, Mason J, Lane DA, Fabritz L, Chua W, Haque MS, et al. Mobile apps to improve Medication Adherence in Cardiovascular Disease: systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5):e24190. https://doi.org/10.2196/24190.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Essén A, Stern AD, Haase CB, Car J, Greaves F, Paparova D, et al. Health app policy: international comparison of nine countries’ approaches. Npj Digit Med. 2022;5(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00573-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gensorowsky D, Witte J, Batram M, Greiner W. Market access and value-based pricing of digital health applications in Germany. Cost Eff Resource Allocation. 2022;20(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-022-00359-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Papanicolas I, Rajan D, Karanikolos M, Soucat A, Figueras J. Health system performance assessment: a framework for policy analysis. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and policies. World Health Organization; 2022. p. 246.

  6. St C. University. Health equity vs. health equality: What distinguishes each? St. Catherine University. 2022. https://www.stkate.edu/academics/healthcare-degrees/health-equity-vs-health-equality. Accessed 11-Dec-22.

  7. Mahler RJ. Diabetes and hypertension. Horm Metab Res. 1990;22(12):599–607. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1004983.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu X, Guo X, Zhang Z. The efficacy of Mobile phone apps for Lifestyle Modification in Diabetes: systematic review and Meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(1):e12297. https://doi.org/10.2196/12297.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Xu H, Long H. The Effect of Smartphone App-based interventions for patients with hypertension: systematic review and Meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(10):e21759. https://doi.org/10.2196/21759.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. IHME. Diabetes mellitus — Level 3 cause: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 2020. https://www.healthdata.org/results/gbd_summaries/2019/diabetes-mellitus-level-3-cause. Accessed 17-Dec-22.

  11. WHO. The top 10 causes of death: World Health Organization. 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death. Accessed 10-Jan-23.

  12. Rapport RS. Hypertension. Silent killer. N J Med. 1999;96(3):41–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kjeldsen SE. Hypertension and cardiovascular risk: General aspects. Pharmacol Res. 2018;129:95–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2017.11.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. IHME. Hypertensive heart disease — Level 3 cause: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 2020. https://www.healthdata.org/results/gbd_summaries/2019/hypertensive-heart-disease-level-3-cause. Accessed 17-Dec-22.

  15. Wang H, Ho AF, Wiener RC, Sambamoorthi U. The Association of Mobile Health Applications with Self-Management behaviors among adults with chronic conditions in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910351.

  16. Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. eHealth Action Plan 2012–2020 - innovative healthcare for the 21st century. Brussels: European Commission; 2012. 6-Dec-2012.

    Google Scholar 

  17. van Kessel R, Hrzic R, O’Nuallain E, Weir E, Wong BLH, Anderson M, et al. Digital Health Paradox: International Policy perspectives to address increased health inequalities for people living with disabilities. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(2):e33819. https://doi.org/10.2196/33819.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, Chin MH, Gary-Webb TL, Navas-Acien A, et al. Social Determinants of Health and Diabetes: A Scientific Review. Diabetes Care. 2020;44(1):258–79. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0053.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Commodore-Mensah Y, Turkson-Ocran R-A, Foti K, Cooper LA, Himmelfarb CD. Associations between Social determinants and Hypertension, Stage 2 hypertension, and controlled blood pressure among men and women in the United States. Am J Hypertens. 2021;34(7):707–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpab011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Pedron S, Emmert-Fees K, Laxy M, Schwettmann L. The impact of diabetes on labour market participation: a systematic review of results and methods. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6324-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Duru OK, Vargas RB, Kermah D, Pan D, Norris KC. Health insurance status and hypertension monitoring and control in the United States. Am J Hypertens. 2007;20(4):348–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjhyper.2006.11.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stark Casagrande S, Cowie CC. Health insurance coverage among people with and without diabetes in the U.S. adult population. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(11):2243–9. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0257.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. The Lancet Public H. Disability—a neglected issue in public health. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(6):e346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00109-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sawert T, Tuppat J. Social inequality in the digital transformation: risks and potentials of mobile health technologies for social inequalities in health. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW); 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lawrence K. In: Linwood SL, editor. Digital Health Equity. Digital Health: Exon; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gann B. Transforming lives: combating digital health inequality. IFLA J. 2019;45(3):187–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035219845013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Laporte A. Grossman Model. In: Gu D, Dupre ME, editors. Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nittas V, Ameli V, Little M, Humphreys DK. Exploring the equity impact of mobile health-based human immunodeficiency virus interventions: a systematic review of reviews and evidence synthesis. Digit Health. 2020;6:2055207620942360. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207620942360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Chong SOK, Pedron S, Abdelmalak N, Laxy M, Stephan AJ. An umbrella review of effectiveness and efficacy trials for app-based health interventions. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00981-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. TUM Professorship for Public Health Prevention, Stephan A-J, Abdelmalak N, Burns J. Consideration of inequalities in effectiveness trials of smartphone applications – a protocol of a systematic assessment of studies from an umbrella review. Open Sci Framew. 2023. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/89DHY.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, O’Neill J, Waters E, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9(10):e1001333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. McKenzie J, Brennan S, Ryan R, Thomson H, Johnston R, Thomas J. Chapter 3: defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. editors. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 63. Cochrane; 2022. (updated February 2022).

  33. Attwood S, van Sluijs E, Sutton S. Exploring equity in primary-care-based physical activity interventions using PROGRESS-Plus: a systematic review and evidence synthesis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0384-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Lu JB, Danko KJ, Elfassy MD, Welch V, Grimshaw JM, Ivers NM. Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e018826. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018826.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kunonga TP, Hanratty B, Bower P, Craig D. A systematic review finds a lack of consensus in methodological approaches in health inequality/inequity focused reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Welch VA, Petkovic J, Jull J, Hartling L, Klassen T, Kristjansson E, et al. Chapter 16: equity and specific populations. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. editors. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 63. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2021. (updated February 2022.

  37. Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Caird J, Lorenc T, Oliver K, Harden A et al. Health promotion, inequalities and young people’s health. 2008.

  38. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel: Microsoft. https://office.microsoft.com/excel. Accessed 30-April-23.

  39. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McKenzie J, Brennan S. Chapter 12: synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. editors. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version. Volume 64. Cochrane; 2023.

  41. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 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. 2022;78(2):348–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14993.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hou C, Xu Q, Diao S, Hewitt J, Li J, Carter B. Mobile phone applications and self-management of diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis, meta-regression of 21 randomized trials and GRADE. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(8):2009–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hyun MK, Lee JW, Ko S-H, Hwang JS. Improving Glycemic Control in type 2 diabetes using mobile applications and e-Coaching: a mixed treatment Comparison Network Meta-Analysis. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;16(5):1239–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968211010153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. The World Bank. The World by Income and Region: World Bank Group. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html. Accessed 02-Apr-23.

  47. Gunawardena KC, Jackson R, Robinett I, Dhaniska L, Jayamanne S, Kalpani S, et al. The influence of the Smart glucose manager Mobile Application on Diabetes Management. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(1):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818804522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kleinman NJ, Shah A, Shah S, Phatak S, Viswanathan V. Improved medication adherence and frequency of blood glucose self-testing using an m-Health platform Versus Usual Care in a Multisite Randomized Clinical Trial among people with type 2 diabetes in India. Telemed J E Health. 2017;23(9):733–40. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2016.0265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kusnanto WKAJ, Suprajitno, Arifin H. DM-calendar app as a diabetes self-management education on adult type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2019;18(2):557–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-019-00468-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Sarfo FS, Treiber F, Gebregziabher M, Adamu S, Nichols M, Singh A, et al. Phone-based intervention for blood pressure control among Ghanaian stroke survivors: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Int J Stroke. 2019;14(6):630–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493018816423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sarfo F, Treiber F, Gebregziabher M, Adamu S, Patel S, Nichols M, et al. PINGS (phone-Based intervention under nurse Guidance after Stroke): interim results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2018;49(1):236–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.117.019591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Anzaldo-Campos MC, Contreras S, Vargas-Ojeda A, Menchaca-Díaz R, Fortmann A, Philis-Tsimikas A. Dulce Wireless Tijuana: a Randomized Control Trial evaluating the Impact of Project Dulce and short-term Mobile Technology on Glycemic Control in a Family Medicine Clinic in Northern Mexico. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(4):240–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2015.0283.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Lee JY, Wong CP, Tan CSS, Nasir NH, Lee SWH. Telemonitoring in fasting individuals with type 2 diabetes Mellitus during Ramadan: a prospective, randomised controlled study. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):10119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10564-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. MapChart. World Map - Simple | Create a custom map | MapChart. https://www.mapchart.net/world.html. Accessed 01-Mar-24.

  55. Bender MS, Cooper BA, Park LG, Padash S, Arai S. A feasible and efficacious mobile-phone based lifestyle intervention for Filipino americans with type 2 diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Diabetes. 2017;2(2):e30. https://doi.org/10.2196/diabetes.8156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Chandler J, Sox L, Kellam K, Feder L, Nemeth L, Treiber F. Impact of a culturally tailored mHealth Medication Regimen Self-Management Program upon blood pressure among hypertensive hispanic adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071226.

  57. Dorsch MP, Cornellier ML, Poggi AD, Bilgen F, Chen P, Wu C, et al. Effects of a Novel Contextual Just-In-Time Mobile App Intervention (LowSalt4Life) on Sodium Intake in Adults With Hypertension: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(8):e16696. https://doi.org/10.2196/16696.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Dugas M, Crowley K, Gao GG, Xu T, Agarwal R, Kruglanski AW, et al. Individual differences in regulatory mode moderate the effectiveness of a pilot mHealth trial for diabetes management among older veterans. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0192807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192807.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Frias J, Virdi N, Raja P, Kim Y, Savage G, Osterberg L. Effectiveness of Digital Medicines to improve clinical outcomes in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and type 2 diabetes: prospective, Open-Label, cluster-randomized pilot clinical trial. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(7):e246. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7833.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Garg SK, Shah VN, Akturk HK, Beatson C, Snell-Bergeon JK. Role of Mobile Technology to Improve Diabetes Care in adults with type 1 diabetes: the Remote-T1D study iBGStar® in type 1 diabetes management. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(4):811–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-017-0272-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Hilliard ME, Cao VT, Eshtehardi SS, Minard CG, Saber R, Thompson D, et al. Type 1 doing well: pilot feasibility and acceptability study of a strengths-based mHealth app for parents of adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(11):835–45. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0048.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Hsu WC, Lau KHK, Huang R, Ghiloni S, Le H, Gilroy S, et al. Utilization of a cloud-based diabetes management program for insulin initiation and Titration enables collaborative decision making between Healthcare providers and patients. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(2):59–67. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2015.0160.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Lakshminarayan K, Westberg S, Northuis C, Fuller CC, Ikramuddin F, Ezzeddine M, et al. A mhealth-based care model for improving hypertension control in stroke survivors: pilot RCT. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;70:24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2018.05.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Morawski K, Ghazinouri R, Krumme A, Lauffenburger JC, Lu Z, Durfee E, et al. Association of a Smartphone Application with Medication adherence and blood pressure control: the MedISAFE-BP Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(6):802–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0447.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Persell SD, Peprah YA, Lipiszko D, Lee JY, Li JJ, Ciolino JD, et al. Effect of home blood pressure monitoring via a Smartphone Hypertension Coaching Application or tracking application on adults with uncontrolled hypertension: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e200255. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0255.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Quinn CC, Shardell MD, Terrin ML, Barr EA, Ballew SH, Gruber-Baldini AL. Cluster-randomized trial of a mobile phone personalized behavioral intervention for blood glucose control. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(9):1934–42. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-0366.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Quinn CC, Sareh PL, Shardell ML, Terrin ML, Barr EA, Gruber-Baldini AL. Mobile Diabetes intervention for Glycemic Control: impact on Physician Prescribing. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(2):362–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296813514503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Quinn CC, Shardell MD, Terrin ML, Barr EA, Park D, Shaikh F, et al. Mobile Diabetes intervention for Glycemic Control in 45- to 64-Year-old persons with type 2 diabetes. J Appl Gerontol. 2016;35(2):227–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464814542611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Wang J, Cai C, Padhye N, Orlander P, Zare M. A behavioral lifestyle intervention enhanced with multiple-behavior self-monitoring using Mobile and Connected Tools for Underserved individuals with type 2 diabetes and comorbid overweight or obesity: pilot comparative effectiveness trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(4):e92. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4478.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Zha P, Qureshi R, Porter S, Chao Y-Y, Pacquiao D, Chase S, et al. Utilizing a Mobile Health intervention to manage hypertension in an Underserved Community. West J Nurs Res. 2020;42(3):201–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919847937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Chao DY, Lin TM, Ma W-Y. Enhanced self-efficacy and behavioral changes among patients with diabetes: cloud-based Mobile Health platform and Mobile App Service. JMIR Diabetes. 2019;4(2):e11017. https://doi.org/10.2196/11017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Gong K, Yan Y-L, Li Y, Du J, Wang J, Han Y, et al. Mobile health applications for the management of primary hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Medicine. 2020;99(16):e19715. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000019715.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Or C, Tao D. A 3-Month Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial of a Patient-Centered, computer-based self-monitoring system for the care of type 2 diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. J Med Syst. 2016;40(4):81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016-0437-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sun C, Sun L, Xi S, Zhang H, Wang H, Feng Y, et al. Mobile phone-based telemedicine practice in older Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes Mellitus: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(1):e10664. https://doi.org/10.2196/10664.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Wang Y, Li M, Zhao X, Pan X, Lu M, Lu J, et al. Effects of continuous care for patients with type 2 diabetes using mobile health application: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019;34(3):1025–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Yu Y, Yan Q, Li H, Li H, Wang L, Wang H, et al. Effects of mobile phone application combined with or without self-monitoring of blood glucose on glycemic control in patients with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. J Diabetes Investig. 2019;10(5):1365–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Zhai Y, Yu W. A Mobile App for Diabetes Management: impact on self-efficacy among patients with type 2 diabetes at a Community Hospital. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e926719. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.926719.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Zhang L, He X, Shen Y, Yu H, Pan J, Zhu W, et al. Effectiveness of Smartphone App-Based Interactive Management on Glycemic Control in Chinese patients with poorly controlled diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(12):e15401. https://doi.org/10.2196/15401.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Zhou W, Chen M, Yuan J, Sun Y. Welltang - A smart phone-based diabetes management application - improves blood glucose control in Chinese people with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016;116:105–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2016.03.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Agarwal P, Mukerji G, Desveaux L, Ivers NM, Bhattacharyya O, Hensel JM, et al. Mobile App for Improved Self-Management of type 2 diabetes: Multicenter Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(1):e10321. https://doi.org/10.2196/10321.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Alfonsi JE, Choi EEY, Arshad T, Sammott SS, Pais V, Nguyen C, et al. Carbohydrate Counting App Using Image Recognition for Youth with Type 1 diabetes: Pilot Randomized Control Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(10):e22074. https://doi.org/10.2196/22074.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Logan AG, Irvine MJ, McIsaac WJ, Tisler A, Rossos PG, Easty A, et al. Effect of home blood pressure telemonitoring with self-care support on uncontrolled systolic hypertension in diabetics. Hypertension. 2012;60(1):51–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.111.188409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Wayne N, Perez DF, Kaplan DM, Ritvo P. Health Coaching reduces HbA1c in type 2 Diabetic patients from a Lower-Socioeconomic Status Community: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(10):e224. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4871.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Goyal S, Nunn CA, Rotondi M, Couperthwaite AB, Reiser S, Simone A, et al. A Mobile App for the self-management of type 1 diabetes among adolescents: a Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(6):e82. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.7336.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Baron JS, Hirani S, Newman SP. A randomised, controlled trial of the effects of a mobile telehealth intervention on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in people with poorly controlled diabetes. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(2):207–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x16631628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Baron JS, Hirani SP, Newman SP. Investigating the behavioural effects of a mobile-phone based home telehealth intervention in people with insulin-requiring diabetes: results of a randomized controlled trial with patient interviews. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(5):503–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x16655911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Istepanian RSH, Zitouni K, Harry D, Moutosammy N, Sungoor A, Tang B, et al. Evaluation of a mobile phone telemonitoring system for glycaemic control in patients with diabetes. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(3):125–8. https://doi.org/10.1258/jtt.2009.003006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Nagrebetsky A, Larsen M, Craven A, Turner J, McRobert N, Murray E, et al. Stepwise self-titration of oral glucose-lowering medication using a mobile telephone-based telehealth platform in type 2 diabetes: a feasibility trial in primary care. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(1):123–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Rossi MCE, Nicolucci A, Di Bartolo P, Bruttomesso D, Girelli A, Ampudia FJ, et al. Diabetes Interactive Diary: a new telemedicine system enabling flexible diet and insulin therapy while improving quality of life: an open-label, international, multicenter, randomized study. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):109–15. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc09-1327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Rossi MC, Nicolucci A, Lucisano G, Pellegrini F, Di Bartolo P, Miselli V, et al. Impact of the Diabetes Interactive Diary telemedicine system on metabolic control, risk of hypoglycemia, and quality of life: a randomized clinical trial in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15(8):670–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2013.0021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Kim EK, Kwak SH, Jung HS, Koo BK, Moon MK, Lim S, et al. The Effect of a Smartphone-Based, patient-centered diabetes care system in patients with type 2 diabetes: a Randomized, Controlled Trial for 24 weeks. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-2197.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Lee DY, Yoo S-H, Min KP, Park C-Y. Effect of Voluntary Participation on Mobile Health Care in Diabetes Management: randomized controlled open-label trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(9):e19153. https://doi.org/10.2196/19153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Yang Y, Lee EY, Kim H-S, Lee S-H, Yoon K-H, Cho J-H. Effect of a Mobile phone-based glucose-monitoring and feedback system for type 2 diabetes management in multiple primary care clinic settings: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(2):e16266. https://doi.org/10.2196/16266.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Alonso-Domínguez R, García-Ortiz L, Patino-Alonso MC, Sánchez-Aguadero N, Gómez-Marcos MA, Recio-Rodríguez JI. Effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention in increasing adherence to the Mediterranean Diet among patients with diabetes Mellitus Type 2: a controlled and randomized study (EMID Study). Nutrients. 2019;11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11010162.

  95. Alonso-Domínguez R, Patino-Alonso MC, Sánchez-Aguadero N, García-Ortiz L, Recio-Rodríguez JI, Gómez-Marcos MA. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on the increase in physical activity in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized clinical trial (EMID Study). Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019;18(5):399–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515119835048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Márquez Contreras E, Márquez Rivero S, Rodríguez García E, López-García-Ramos L, Carlos Pastoriza Vilas J, Baldonedo Suárez A, et al. Specific hypertension smartphone application to improve medication adherence in hypertension: a cluster-randomized trial. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35(1):167–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1549026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-017-0963-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Castelnuovo G, Manzoni GM, Cuzziol P, Cesa GL, Corti S, Tuzzi C, et al. TECNOB Study: ad interim results of a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Multidisciplinary Telecare intervention for obese patients with Type-2 diabetes. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2011;7:44–50. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901107010044.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Bee YM, Batcagan-Abueg APM, Chei C-L, Do YK, Haaland B, Goh S-Y, et al. A smartphone application to deliver a treat-to-target insulin titration algorithm in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(10):e174–6. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-0419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Huang Z, Tan E, Lum E, Sloot P, Boehm BO, Car J. A smartphone app to improve medication adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes in Asia: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(9):e14914. https://doi.org/10.2196/14914.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Charpentier G, Benhamou P-Y, Dardari D, Clergeot A, Franc S, Schaepelynck-Belicar P, et al. The Diabeo software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support improves HbA1c in poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients: a 6-month, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial (TeleDiab 1 study). Diabetes Care. 2011;34(3):533–9. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-1259.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Franc S, Joubert M, Daoudi A, Fagour C, Benhamou P-Y, Rodier M, et al. Efficacy of two telemonitoring systems to improve glycaemic control during basal insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: the TeleDiab-2 randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21(10):2327–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13806.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Holmen H, Torbjørnsen A, Wahl AK, Jenum AK, Småstuen MC, Arsand E, et al. A Mobile Health intervention for self-management and lifestyle change for persons with type 2 diabetes, part 2: one-year results from the Norwegian Randomized Controlled Trial RENEWING HEALTH. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014;2(4):e57. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3882.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Torbjørnsen A, Jenum AK, Småstuen MC, Arsand E, Holmen H, Wahl AK, et al. A Low-Intensity Mobile Health Intervention with and without Health Counseling for persons with type 2 diabetes, part 1: baseline and short-term results from a Randomized Controlled Trial in the Norwegian part of RENEWING HEALTH. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014;2(4):e52. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Skrøvseth SO, Årsand E, Godtliebsen F, Joakimsen RM. Data-Driven Personalized Feedback to patients with type 1 diabetes: a Randomized Trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(7):482–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2014.0276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Alanzi T, Alanazi NR, Istepanian R, Philip N. Evaluation of the effectiveness of mobile diabetes management system with social networking and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for T2D. Mhealth. 2018;4:35. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth.2018.06.05.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Alotaibi MM, Istepanian R, Philip N. A mobile diabetes management and educational system for type-2 diabetics in Saudi Arabia (SAED). Mhealth. 2016;2:33. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth.2016.08.01.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Boels AM, Vos RC, Dijkhorst-Oei L-T, Rutten GEHM. Effectiveness of diabetes self-management education and support via a smartphone application in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: results of a randomized controlled trial (TRIGGER study). BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2019;7(1):e000981. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000981.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Drion I, Pameijer LR, van Dijk PR, Groenier KH, Kleefstra N, Bilo HJG. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296815585871.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Gong E, Baptista S, Russell A, Scuffham P, Riddell M, Speight J, et al. My diabetes Coach, a Mobile app-based interactive Conversational Agent to support type 2 diabetes Self-Management: Randomized effectiveness-implementation trial. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(11):e20322. https://doi.org/10.2196/20322.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. 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. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2588.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Orsama A-L, Lähteenmäki J, Harno K, Kulju M, Wintergerst E, Schachner H, et al. Active assistance technology reduces glycosylated hemoglobin and weight in individuals with type 2 diabetes: results of a theory-based randomized trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15(8):662–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2013.0056.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Klee P, Bussien C, Castellsague M, Combescure C, Dirlewanger M, Girardin C, et al. An intervention by a patient-designed Do-It-Yourself Mobile device app reduces HbA1c in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a Randomized double-crossover study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(12):797–805. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Brath H, Morak J, Kästenbauer T, Modre-Osprian R, Strohner-Kästenbauer H, Schwarz M, et al. Mobile health (mHealth) based medication adherence measurement - a pilot trial using electronic blisters in diabetes patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;76(1Suppl 1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12184.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Berndt R-D, Takenga C, Preik P, Kuehn S, Berndt L, Mayer H, et al. Impact of information technology on the therapy of type-1 diabetes: a case study of children and adolescents in Germany. J Pers Med. 2014;4(2):200–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm4020200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Kardas P, Lewandowski K, Bromuri S. Type 2 diabetes patients benefit from the COMODITY12 mHealth System: results of a Randomised Trial. J Med Syst. 2016;40(12):259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016-0619-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Waki K, Fujita H, Uchimura Y, Omae K, Aramaki E, Kato S, et al. DialBetics: a Novel Smartphone-based self-management support system for type 2 diabetes patients. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(2):209–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296814526495.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Castensøe-Seidenfaden P, Husted GR, Jensen AK, Hommel E, Olsen B, Pedersen-Bjergaard U, et al. Testing a Smartphone App (Young with Diabetes) to Improve Self-Management of Diabetes over 12 months: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(6):e141. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9487.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Chatzakis C, Floros D, Papagianni M, Tsiroukidou K, Kosta K, Vamvakis A, et al. The Beneficial Effect of the Mobile Application Euglyca in Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes Mellitus: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(11):627–34. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Flood D, Seiglie JA, Dunn M, Tschida S, Theilmann M, Marcus ME, et al. The state of diabetes treatment coverage in 55 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative, individual-level data in 680 102 adults. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2(6):e340–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-7568(21)00089-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Schutte AE, Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy N, Mohan S, Prabhakaran D. Hypertension in low- and Middle-Income Countries. Circul Res. 2021;128(7):808–26. https://doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.120.318729.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Dunachie S, Chamnan P. The double burden of diabetes and global infection in low and middle-income countries. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2019;113(2):56–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/try124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Mills KT, Stefanescu A, He J. The global epidemiology of hypertension. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020;16(4):223–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-019-0244-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Carroll JK, Moorhead A, Bond R, LeBlanc WG, Petrella RJ, Fiscella K. Who uses Mobile Phone Health Apps and does Use Matter? A Secondary Data Analytics Approach. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(4):e125. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5604.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Jones M, DeRuyter F, Morris J. The Digital Health Revolution and people with disabilities: perspective from the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020381.

  126. Christiani Y, Dhippayom T, Chaiyakunapruk N. Assessing evidence of inequalities in access to medication for diabetic populations in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2016;9:32505. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.32505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Dauvrin M, Lorant V. Culturally competent interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus management: an equity-oriented literature review. Ethn Health. 2014;19(6):579–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2013.857763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Kautzky-Willer A, Harreiter J, Pacini G. Sex and gender differences in risk, pathophysiology and complications of type 2 diabetes Mellitus. Endocr Rev. 2016;37(3):278–316. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2015-1137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Nordström A, Hadrévi J, Olsson T, Franks PW, Nordström P. Higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Men Than in Women is Associated with differences in visceral Fat Mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metabolism. 2016;101(10):3740–6. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2016-1915.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Song J-J, Ma Z, Wang J, Chen L-X, Zhong J-C. Gender differences in hypertension. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2020;13(1):47–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-019-09888-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Mauvais-Jarvis F. Gender differences in glucose homeostasis and diabetes. Physiol Behav. 2018;187:20–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.08.016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Moghissi E. Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older patients: current and emerging treatment options. Diabetes Ther. 2013;4(2):239–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-013-0039-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. NIDDK. Type 2 Diabetes: National Institute of Health (NIH). 2017. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/type-2-diabetes. Accessed 11-May-23.

  134. Deere BP, Ferdinand KC. Hypertension and race/ethnicity. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2020;35(4):342–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/hco.0000000000000742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Malvey DM, Slovensky DJ. Global mHealth policy arena: status check and future directions. Mhealth. 2017;3:41. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth.2017.09.03.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Vassilakopoulou P, Hustad E. Bridging Digital divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research. Inf Syst Front. 2023;25(3):955–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Eyrich NW, Andino JJ, Fessell DP. Bridging the Digital divide to avoid leaving the most vulnerable behind. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(8):703–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.1143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Garnett A, Northwood M, Ting J, Sangrar R. mHealth interventions to support caregivers of older adults: equity-focused systematic review. JMIR Aging. 2022;5(3):e33085. https://doi.org/10.2196/33085.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials - the gold standard for effectiveness research: study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG. 2018;125(13):1716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15199.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. Prabhakaran D, Jha D, Prieto-Merino D, Roy A, Singh K, Ajay VS, et al. Effectiveness of an mhealth-based electronic decision support system for Integrated Management of Chronic Conditions in Primary Care: the mWellcare Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Circulation. 2019;139(3):380–91. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.118.038192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Kim JY, Wineinger NE, Steinhubl SR. The influence of Wireless Self-Monitoring Program on the relationship between patient activation and Health behaviors, Medication Adherence, and blood pressure levels in hypertensive patients: a Substudy of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e116. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5429.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Peters M, Boeldt DL, Ariniello L, Kim JY, et al. A prospective randomized trial examining health care utilization in individuals using multiple smartphone-enabled biosensors. PeerJ. 2016;4:e1554. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1554.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Cozier Y, Palmer JR, Horton NJ, Fredman L, Wise LA, Rosenberg L. Racial discrimination and the incidence of hypertension in US black women. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16(9):681–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2005.11.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Gonzales KL, Lambert WE, Fu R, Jacob M, Harding AK. Perceived racial discrimination in Health Care, Completion of Standard Diabetes Services, and Diabetes Control among a sample of American Indian Women. Diabetes Educ. 2014;40(6):747–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721714551422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. SteelFisher GK, Findling MG, Bleich SN, Casey LS, Blendon RJ, Benson JM, et al. Gender discrimination in the United States: experiences of women. Health Serv Res. 2019;54(S2):1442–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Gopaldas A. Intersectionality 101. J Public Policy Mark. 2013;32(1suppl):90–4. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.12.044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Allegrante JP, Wells MT, Peterson JC. Interventions to support behavioral self-management of Chronic diseases. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40:127–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. Goswami A, Poole L, Thorlu-Bangura Z, Khan N, Hanif W, Khunti K, et al. The Use of Digital Health Interventions for Cardiometabolic Diseases among South Asian and black minority ethnic groups: Realist Review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e40630. https://doi.org/10.2196/40630.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Handley MA, Lyles CR, McCulloch C, Cattamanchi A. Selecting and improving quasi-experimental designs in effectiveness and implementation research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:5–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014128.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. mHealthBelgium. mHealthBELGIUM is the Belgian platform for mobile applications that are CE-marked as a medical device. Belgium: Agoria and beMedTech. 2024. https://mhealthbelgium.be/. Accessed 21.06.2024.

  151. ApiApps. ApiApps Aide à la prescription individualisée d’applications et objets mobiles de santé France: ApiApps. 2024. https://projet-apiapps.org/en. Accessed 21.06.2024.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Gesa Meyer (GM) and Niels Ole Kristiansen (NOK) for their support and assistance in reviewing and double-checking the data extracted from the included studies by the primary reviewer NA.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was received for conducting this study.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AJS, JB and NA conceptualized the study and developed the study protocol; NA, LS, and AJS performed the selection and data extraction of studies. NA and AJS conducted the data analysis; AJS and JB supervised the study; NA, AJS, JB, LS and ML interpreted the data; NA and AJS drafted the manuscript, and JB, LS and ML contributed to the drafted version; all authors substantively and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy Abdelmalak.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Electronic supplementary material

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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdelmalak, N., Burns, J., Suhlrie, L. et al. Consideration of inequalities in effectiveness trials of mHealth applications – a systematic assessment of studies from an umbrella review. Int J Equity Health 23, 181 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02267-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02267-4

Keywords