Table 1.

Evaluation studies of PWPs targeting patients with diabetes and/or care providers

Study	Study design	Sample, age	Duration, mo	Clinical area	Country	Control	Intervention	Measures	Results: C vs I or pre-post
Kobb et al. [26]	Quasi-experimental; mixed-method	N = 281, 71 y N = 57	12	Type 1 and 2, other chronic health conditions Providers	USA and Puerto Rico	Nonequivalent groups with usual care	Rural Home Care Project; uses home telehealth devices to prevent health crises	Hospital admissions Bed days of care Emergency room visits Prescriptions Patient satisfaction Provider satisfaction	+27 vs −60% +32 vs −68% +22 vs −66% +37 vs −59% 97% satisfied 100% satisfied
Tang et al. [27]	Qualitative	N = 305 adults	N/A	Type 1 and 2	Taiwan	N/A	Implementation of Chronic Disease Management Portal Platform	Quality of health care	69.8% of patients report improved quality of health care
Tang et al. [27]	Qualitative	N = 16, NR	N/A	Providers	Taiwan	N/A	Implementation of Chronic Disease Management Portal Platform	Health care burden Efficiency of care	− 12.75% + 87.5%
Bellazzi et al. [31]	Pre-post	N = 22, 43 y	7	Type 1 and 2	Italy	N/A	M2DM system; organizes health information from patients, creates a risk index, and alerts providers when patients are at high risk for microangiopathic complications	# of automatically generated messages # of reminders sent Relative risk index over time	29.44 ± 9.83 16.44 ± 4.39 Decrease in badly controlled values from 33% to 27%
Noel et al. [34]	RCT	N = 104, 71 y	12	Single and comorbid diagnoses: heart failure, chronic lung disease, diabetes	USA	Usual home health care services plus nurse case management	Home telehealth (electronic monitoring and alert system) plus nurse case management	HbA1c levels Quality of life: Cognitive status Functional level Patient satisfaction Self-rated health Health resource use: Urgent visits Total visits	+0.8% vs −1.0%, P < 0.01 19.4 vs 20.0, P < 0.01 Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Nonsignificant +5 vs −83, P < 0.05 Nonsignificant
Smith et al. [36]	Pre-post	N = 16, 41 y	9	Type 1 and 2	USA	N/A	MyCareTeam Program	HbA1c levels BP, diastolic BP, systolic HDL LDL Triglycerides	−2.2%, P < 0.001 greater reduction for heavy users Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Nonsignificant
McMahon et al. [33]	RCT	N = 104, 63 y	12	Type 1 and 2	USA	Diabetes education class and usual care	Diabetes education class and web-based care management (glucose and BP monitoring devices and access to care management website)	HbA1c levels C vs I High vs low users BP, systolic BP, diastolic HDL LDL Triglycerides	−1.2 vs −1.6%, P < 0.05 −1.9 vs −1.2%, P = 0.05 −7 vs −10, P < 0.01 Nonsignificant 3 ± 6 mg/dL, P < 0.05 Nonsignificant −38 ± 99 mg/dL, P < 0.01
Kim et al. [32]	Pre-post	N = 44 43 y	3	Type 2	Korea	N/A	Short message service by cell phone and Internet	HbA1c levels Exercise Medication adherence Foot care	−1.1%, P < 0.01 + 30 min/wk, P < 0.05 +1.1 d/wk, P < 0.05 +1.1 d/wk, P < 0.05
Ross et al. [30]	RCT	N = 328, 59 y	9	Type 2	USA	PWP conveying generic diabetes self-management information	Diabetes-STAR: PWP conveying personalized information	Portal usage amounts	319 vs 772 d of usage, P < 0.001
Kollmann et al. [29]	Pre-post	N = 10, 37 y	3	Type 1	Austria	N/A	Diab-Memory cell phone and PWP: patient information on trends in their data	HbA1c levels BG levels Usage	7.9% vs 7.5%, P < 0.02 Nonsignificant 14 uploads/patient/d
Faridi et al. [55]	RCT	N = 30, 55 y	3	Type 2	USA	Self-care and treatment as usual	1-day training workshop and NICHE (daily cell phone messages)	HbA1c levels BP, systolic BP, diastolic Self-efficacy Exercise Usability	Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Nonsignificant 0.0 vs −0.5, P < 0.05 Nonsignificant Low usage due to technical complications
Quinn et al. [35]	RCT	N = 30, 51 y	3	Type 2	USA	Asked to fax or call in BG levels every 2 weeks, usual standard of care	WellDoc: cell phone–based software with feedback	HbA1c levels SDSCA Diet Medications Exercise Provider satisfaction Patient satisfaction Correction of medications	−0.7% vs −2.0%, P < 0.05 +0.6 vs +2.4, P < 0.05 Nonsignificant Nonsignificant 100% satisfaction 91% satisfaction 23.3% vs 84.6%, P < 0.01
Fonda et al. [17••]	RCT	N = 104, 61 y	12	Type 1 and 2	USA	Usual care	Internet-based care management (included BG/BP readers, and MyCareTeam website)	HbA1c levels Diabetes distress	Time-varying analyses: Decreases in HbA1c and diabetes distress depending on level of usage; distress scores lower among users than nonusers
Holbrook et al. [9•]	RCT	N = 511, 61 y	5.9	Type 2	USA	Usual care	COMPETE II: web-based color-coded diabetes tracker, messaging	Process composite score Clinical composite scores Quality of life Program satisfaction Continuity of care	0.1 vs 1.3, P < 0.001 0.0 vs 0.6, P < 0.01 Nonsignificant 75.9% satisfaction Nonsignificant
Quinn et al. [23••]	RCT	N = 260, 18–64 y	12	Type 2	USA	Usual care plus annual supply of BG testing materials	Diabetes communication system (cell phone, PWP, and treatment algorithms)	HbA1c levels BP BMI Lipid levels Symptom measure Diabetes distress	Ongoing study

BG—blood glucose; BMI—body mass index; BP— blood pressure; C—control group; COMPLETE II—Computerization of Medical Practice for the Enhancement of Therapeutic Effectiveness; HbA_1c—glycated hemoglobin A_1c; HDL—high-density lipoprotein; I—intervention group; LDL—low-density lipoprotein; M2DM—multi-access services for telematic management of diabetes mellitus; N/A—not applicable; NICHE—Novel Interactive Cell Phone Technology for Health Enhancement; NR—not reported; PWP—patient web portal; RCT—randomized controlled trial; SDSCA—summary of diabetes self-care activities; USA—United States of America.