Proceedings of the ICTs for Improving Patients Rehabilitation Research Techniques 2013
DOI: 10.4108/pervasivehealth.2013.252153
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding the Needs of Low SES Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Abstract: This work-in-progress reports preliminary results of an interview study (n=5) with low SES, rural patients with type 2 diabetes. The paper presents 3 themes and associated design suggestions relating to the high-prevalence of comorbidities, the importance of external support, and the different stages a patient may be in with respect to making lifestyle changes. Keywords-Type 2 diabetes; diabetes self-management practices; rural communities; qualitative research; chronic disease; low SES I.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These barriers to resources can be particularly exacerbated among vulnerable populations. For example, children and adolescents are often dependent on their families and communities for health-related resources [15], and individuals of low socioeconomic status often lack resources to access health care or engage in healthy behaviors [9,36]. …”
Section: Background and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These barriers to resources can be particularly exacerbated among vulnerable populations. For example, children and adolescents are often dependent on their families and communities for health-related resources [15], and individuals of low socioeconomic status often lack resources to access health care or engage in healthy behaviors [9,36]. …”
Section: Background and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the review was concerned with the use of technology in self-care practices. This excluded a number of papers that would otherwise be featured in the review, such as those contextualising the design space of caring for a chronic condition (e.g., Barnes et al [2013]), those suggesting design concepts without evaluating them (e.g., ), and those describing algorithms or software architectures to solve specific self-care problems (e.g., Schaeffer-Filho et al [2009]). These types of studies are very relevant, but they were not about technology in use and, therefore, were excluded from the review.…”
Section: Focus Of the Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their final review included 14 studies, only 3 of which addressed management of multiple chronic conditions. The majority of studies in their review addressed diabetes, and the design of digital applications to support diabetes is particularly common in the HCI literature [1], [4], [5], [17], [23].…”
Section: Technology For Chronic Disease Self-managementmentioning
confidence: 99%