A number of systematic reviews have examined studies on various aspects of telemedicine and eHealth for diabetes care, but they are generally focused on one specific type of technology application for diabetes care. A wide range of solutions from manual or automated telephone calls, short message services, websites, mobile health apps, remote monitoring devices, and sophisticated artificial intelligence systems has been studied in different settings and scopes with mixed results. However, despite the promising results of research studies, such innovative solutions are not widely adopted by health systems worldwide. Lack of supportive policy and legislation, unsustainable reimbursement, inefficient business models, and concerns regarding the security and privacy of health data are among the most problematic barriers.

The m-Health system for IDA showed promising levels of adherence, usability, perception of usefulness, and satisfaction. Further research is required to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using this system in outpatient settings.

AimTo examine the diabetes telehealth service(DTS) in comparison to outpatient face to face(OP) diabetes clinic at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane. MethodsCross sectional survey was done as part of the Australian National Diabetes Audit in May 2016 for all patients attending the DTS and OP diabetes clinic. ResultsOf the 33 patients that attended the DTS -21(63.6%) were type 2 diabetes(T2DM) and 11(33.3%) were type 1 DM (T1DM). Of the 155 patients that attended the outpatient diabetes clinic 95(61.3%) were T2DM and 58(37.4%) were T1DM. The average HbA1c of T2DM in DTS were 9.1%(76mmol/mol) vs 8.1% (65mmol/mol) in the OP diabetes clinic. The average HbA1c of T1DM in DTS were 8.8%(73mmol/mol) vs 8.3%(67mmol/mol) in OP diabetes clinic. The proportion of patients with an HbA1c >7.9%(63mmol/mol) were higher in the DTS group. The proportion of initial visits were higher in DTS group for both T2DM and T1DM (24% and 18% vs 9% and 9% respectively). As expected there were more indigenous T2DM & T1DM patients in the DTS when compared to OP diabetes clinic (43% and 18% vs 1% and 2% respectively). The rates of adherence to diabetes complication screening and access to allied health staff were similar in both groups. ConclusionDTS increases access to specialist care with minimal travel. The higher HbA1c in the DTS group as compared to OP diabetes clinic is likely related to higher proportion of first visits to the service and Indigenous clients in the DTS group. Access to multidisciplinary team seems to be similar, which is a key component in diabetes management. To our knowledge, there has been no prior evaluation of DTS in Australia. The limitations of the study are (1) small numbers and (2) cross-sectional audit with no longitudinal follow-up.

Aims To identify the views of people with Type 2 diabetes (PWD) and healthcare professionals (HCP) about diabetes care. Methods A systematic review of qualitative studies reporting both groups’ views using thematic synthesis frameworked by the eHealth Enhanced Chronic Care Model was conducted. Results We searched six electronic databases between 2010 and 2020, identified 6999 studies and included 21. Thirty themes were identified with in general complementary views between PWD and HCP. PWD and HCP find lifestyle changes challenging and get frustrated when PWD struggle to achieve it. Good self‐management requires a trustful PWD–HCP relationship. Diabetes causes distress and often HCP focus on clinical aspects. They value diabetes education. PWD require broader, tailored, consistent and ongoing information, but HCPs do not have enough time for providing it. There is need for diabetes training for primary HCP. Shared decision making can mitigate PWD’s fears. Different sources of social support can influence PWD’s ability to self‐manage and PWD/HCP suggest online peer groups. PWD/HCP indicate lack of communication and collaboration between HCP. PWD’s and HCP’s views about quality in diabetes care differ. They believe that comprehensive, multidisciplinary and locally provided care can help to achieve better outcomes. They recognise digital health benefits, with room for personal interaction (PWD) and eHealth literacy improvements (HCP). Evidence‐based guidelines are important but can detract from personalised care. Conclusion We hypothesise that including PWD’s and HCP’s complementary views, multidisciplinary teams and digital tools in the redesign of Type 2 diabetes care can help with overcoming some of the challenges and achieving common goals.