Disease Management & Health Outcomes

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 159–171 | Cite as

Impact on Patient Outcomes

Review Article Electronic Management Systems in Diabetes Mellitus


The epidemiological burden of diabetes mellitus is changing the classical model of diabetes management, in which a specialist center delivers care based on registration, recall and regular review. Primary care services are progressively assuming a crucial role in screening, prevention and management of the disease. It therefore becomes critical to improve the performance of primary care providers by suitable organizational interventions. The current advances in information technology (IT) and communications technology provide new ways for coping with organizational problems, and provide the opportunity to implement complex, multifaceted interventions in a cost-effective manner. Moreover, IT enables patients to exploit new modalities of access to healthcare services.

This review highlights the current situation in the implementation and delivery of IT solutions for diabetes care, and describes the trends towards more advanced and innovative IT-based services.

A large number of electronic patient records (EPRs), decision support tools and telemedicine solutions have been proposed and studied but a relatively low number of them have been fully exploited in clinical practice. The main reasons for this limited dissemination are related to the complexity of establishing and evaluating interventions that have a strong impact in the process of care. However, the need for a large scale reorganization of chronic care is now pushing towards the integration of the newest IT tools with new models of diabetes management.


Decision Support System Diabetes Care Diabetes Management Short Message Service International Diabetes Federation 



The authors have provided no information on sources of funding or on conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review. The author gratefully acknowledges Douglas Boyle for proving additional information on the DARTS project. This work was partially supported by the IST project 10315: Multi-Access Services for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus, funded by the European Commission.


  1. 1.
    Diabetes prevalence [online]. Available from URL: http://www.idf.org/home/index.cfm?node=264 [Accessed 2003 Jan 29].
  2. 2.
    Diabetes [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/ncd/dia/ [Accessed 2003 Jan 29].
  3. 3.
    Statistics: diabetes surveillance system [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics [Accessed 2003 Jan 29].
  4. 4.
    American Diabetes Association. Economic consequences of diabetes mellitus in the US in 1997. Diabetes Care 1998; 21(2): 296–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Detournay B, Fagnani F, Pribil C, et al. Medical resources consumption of type 2 diabetics in France in 1998. Diabetes Metab 2000 May; 26(3): 225–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liebl A, Neiss A, Spannheimer A, et al. Costs of type 2 diabetes in Germany: results of the CODE-2 study. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2001 May 18; 126(20): 585–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garattini L, Tediosi F, Chiaffarino F, et al. The outpatient cost of diabetes care in Italian diabetes centers. Value Health 2001 May–Jun; 4(3): 251–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Brien JA, Caro I, Getsios D, et al. Diabetes in Canada: direct medical costs of major macrovascular complications. Value Health 2001 May–Jun; 4(3): 258–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Griffin SJ, Kinmonth AL. Diabetes care: the effectiveness of systems for routine surveillance for people with diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, issue 2. Oxford: Update Software, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffin SJ. The management of diabetes [editorial]. BMJ 2001; 323: 946–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorman C. Introduction and welcome to the International Symposium on Computers and Diabetes care. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer and Diabetes Care; 2000 Sep 8–10: Rochester (MN). Rochester (MN): Mayo Clinic Press, 2000: Report no. MC2470-06.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glasgow RE, Hiss RG, Anderson RM, et al. Report of the health care delivery work group: behavioral research related to the establishment of a chronic disease model for diabetes care. Diabetes Care 2001 Jan; 24(1): 124–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehmann ED, Deutsch T. Application of computers in diabetes care: a review. Part I and II. Med Inform (Lond) 1995 Oct–Dec; 20(4): 281–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lehmann ED, Deutsch T. Computer assisted diabetes care: a 6-year retrospective. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1996 Aug; 50(3): 209–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lehmann ED. Application of information technology in clinical diabetes care: a special issue. Part 1. Databases, algorithms and decision support. Med Inform (Lond) 1996 Oct–Dec; 21(4): 255–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lehmann ED. Application of information technology in clinical diabetes care: a special issue. Part 2. Models and education. Med Inform 1997 Jan–Mar; 22(1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carson ER. Decision support systems in diabetes: a systems perspective. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1998 May; 56(2): 77–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lorence DP, Spink A, Richards MC. EPR adoption and dual record maintenance in the U.S.: assessing variation in medical systems infrastructure. J Med Syst 2002 Oct; 26(5): 357–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loomis GA, Ries JS, Saywell Jr RM, et al. If electronic medical records are so great, why aren’t family physicians using them? J Fam Pract 2002 Jul; 51(7): 636–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laerum H, Ellingsen G, Faxvaag A. Doctors’ use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: cross sectional survey. BMJ 2001 Dec 8; 323(7325): 1344–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gill JM, Ewen E, Nsereko M. Impact of an electronic medical record on quality of care in a primary care office. Del Med J 2001 May; 73(5): 187–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sonksen P, Williams C. Information technology in diabetes care ‘Diabeta’: 23 years of development and use of a computer-based record for diabetes care. Int J Biomed Comput 1996 Jul; 42(1–2): 67–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carey S, Sonksen P. Embracing diversity -the key to successful electronic patient record systems. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer and Diabetes Care; 2000 Sep 8–10: Rochester (MN). Rochester (MN): Mayo Clinic Press, 2000: Report no. MC2470-06.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brown PJ, Sonksen P. Evaluation of the quality of information retrieval of clinical findings from a computerized patient database using a semantic terminological model. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000 Jul–Aug; 7(4): 392–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Markwell DC. Messages for communication of electronic health care records in diabetes care. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2000 Aug; 13(4): 210–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown PJ. Coming to terms with datasets in diabetes care. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2000 Aug; 13(4): 210–4.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vaughan NJ, Cashman SJ, Cavan DA, et al. A detailed examination of the clinical terms and concepts required for communication by electronic messages in diabetes care. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2000 Aug; 13(4): 201–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Engelbrecht R, Hildebrand C, Brugues E, et al. DIABCARD: an application of a portable medical record for persons with diabetes. Med Inform (Lond) 1996 Oct–Dec; 21(4): 273–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gogou G, Mavromatis A, Maglaveras N, et al. DIABCARD core system: a chip card medical information system for diabetes care. Stud Health Technol Inform 1999; 68: 805–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blobel B, Pharow P, Spiegel V, et al. Securing interoperability between chip card-based medical information systems and health networks. Int J Med Inf 2001 Dec; 64(2–3): 401–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weber S. Remote network (Ethernet) connectivity for glucose testing at the point of care [online]. Available from URL: http://www.lifescan.com/pdf/hospital/056-775.pdf [Accessed 2003 Jan 30].
  32. 32.
    Cavan DA, Hovorka R, Hejlesen OK, et al. Use of the DIAS model to predict unrecognised hypoglycaemia in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1996 Aug; 50(3): 241–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cavan DA, Hejlesen OK, Hovorka R, et al. Preliminary experience of the DIAS computer model in providing insulin dose advice to patients with insulin dependent diabetes. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1998 May; 56(2): 157–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hejlesen OK, Andreassen S, Frandsen NE, et al. Using a double blind controlled clinical trial to evaluate the function of a Diabetes Advisory System: a feasible approach? Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1998 May; 56(2): 165–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tudor RS, Hovorka R, Cavan DA, et al. DIAS-NIDDM: a model-based decision support system for insulin dose adjustment in insulin-treated subjects with NIDDM. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1998 May; 56(2): 175–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Deutsch T, Roudsari AV, Leicester HJ, et al. UTOPIA: a consultation system for visit-by-visit diabetes management. Med Inform (Lond) 1996; 21(4): 345–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bellazzi R, La Rizza C, Magni P, et al. Intelligent analysis of clinical time series: an application in the diabetes mellitus domain. Artif Intell Med 2000; 20: 37–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Montani S, Bellazzi R, Larizza C, et al. Protocol-based reasoning in diabetic patient management. Int J Med Inf 1999; 53: 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Montani S, Bellazzi R, Portinale L, et al. Diabetic patients management exploiting case-based reasoning techniques. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2000; 62: 205–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Saint Vincent Declaration [online]. Available from URL: http://www.diabcare.de/dimeu.html [Accessed 2003 Jan 29].
  41. 41.
    Piwernetz K, Home PD, Snorgaard O, et al. Monitoring the targets of the S t Vincent Declaration and the implementation of quality management in diabetes care: the DIABCARE initiative. The DIABCARE Monitoring Group of the St Vincent Declaration Steering Committee. Diabet Med 1993 May; 10(4): 371–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Piwernetz K. DIABCARE Quality Network in Europe. A model for quality management in chronic diseases. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2001 Apr; 16 Suppl. 3: S5–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gerlach K, Kaeding A, Kottmair S, et al. The implementation of a quality-net as a part of the European project DIABCARE Q-Net. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 1998 Jun; 2(2): 98–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Eberl S, Friske M, Landgraf R. Quality assurance and development by the Germanwide implementation of the Diabcare fax system by DIABCARE Bavaria, Germany [abstract]. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2000; 13(4): 229.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eberl S, Anders M, Bogner U, et al. Working with the basic information sheet: a three years follow up. 8th workshop of the Diabetes Care Optimization through Information Technology (DOIT) study group; 2001 Sep 7–8; Stirling.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Slansek C, Battlog K, Beck P, et al. Quality circles using computer supported benchmark tools for diabetes care [abstract]. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2000; 13(4): 230.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hecker W, Grabert M, Holl RW. Quality of paediatric IDDM care in Germany: a multicentre analysis. German Paediatric Diabetology Group. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 1999 Jan–Feb; 12(1): 31–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Krause U, Grabert M, Schweiggert F, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of quality indicators over 6 years: intensification of insulin therapy and better completeness of documented control examinations in pediatric diabetology in Germany. 8th workshop of the Diabetes Care Optimization through Information Technology (DOIT) study group, 2001 Sep 7–8; Stirling.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Patel V, Kushniruk AW, Yang S, et al. Impact of a computer-based patient record system on data collection, knowledge organization and reasoning. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 7(6): 569–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zielstroff RD. On line practice guidelines: issues, obstacles and future prospects. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 3: 227–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lobach DF, Hammond ED. Computerized decision support based on a clinical practice guideline improve compliance with care standards. Am J Med 1997; 102: 89–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bakken Henry S, Douglas K, Galzagorry G, et al. A template-based approach to support utilization of clinical practice guidelines within an electronic health record. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5(3): 237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hayward RSA, et al. Patient-specific evidence-based care recommendations for diabetes mellitus: development and initial clinic experience with a computerized decision support system. Int J Med Inform 1998; 51: 127–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hetlevik I, Holmen J, Kruger O, et al. Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of diabetes mellitus in general practice: evaluation of effort, process, and patient outcome related to implementation of a computer-based decision support system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(1): 210–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    De Olivarius NF, Beck-Nielsen H, Andreasen AH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of structured personal care of type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ 2001; 323: 970–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Renders CM, Valk GD, Griffin SJ, et al. Interventions to improve the management of diabetes in primary care, outpatient and community settings: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2001 Oct; 24(10): 1821–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    McCulloch DK, Price MJ, Hindmarsh M, et al. A population-based approach to diabetes management in a primary care setting: early results and lessons learned. Eff Clin Pract 1998 Aug–Sep; 1(1): 12–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ornstein SM, Jenkins RG, MacFarlane L, et al. Electronic medical records as tools for quality improvement in ambulatory practice: theory and a case study. Top Health Inf Manage 1998 Nov; 19(2): 35–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sperl-Hillen J, O’Connor PJ, Carlson RR, et al. Improving diabetes care in a large health care system: an enhanced primary care approach. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000 Nov; 26(11): 615–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nyman MA, Murphy ME, Schryver PG, et al. Improving performance in diabetes care: a multicomponent intervention. Eff Clin Pract 2000 Sep–Oct; 3(5): 205–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Selecky S. Integrating technology and interventions in the management of diabetes. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2001; 9(14): 39–52.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gorman CA, Zimmerman BR, Smith SA, et al. DEMS — a second generation diabetes electronic management system. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2000 Jun; 62(2): 127–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Montori VM, Smith SA. Information systems in diabetes: in search of the holy grail in the era of evidence-based diabetes care. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2001; 109 Suppl. 2: S358–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Smith SA, Murphy ME, Huschka TR, et al. Impact of a diabetes electronic management system on the care of patients seen in a subspecialty diabetes clinic. Diabetes Care 1998 Jun; 21(6): 972–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dinneen SF, Bjornsen SS, Bryant SC, et al. Towards an optimal model for community-based diabetes care: design and baseline data from the Mayo Health System Diabetes Translation Project. J Eval Clin Pract 2000 Nov; 6(4): 421–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Smith SA, Dinneen S, Bjornsen S, et al. The impact of practice site and the use of an electronic management system on performance and outcomes in the care of people with diabetes. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer and Diabetes Care, 2000 Sep 8–10: Rochester (MN). Rochester (MN): Mayo Clinic Press, 2000: Report no. MC2470-06.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ellis JD, Evans JM, Ruta DA, et al. Glaucoma incidence in an unselected cohort of diabetic patients: is diabetes mellitus a risk factor for glaucoma?. DARTS/MEMO collaboration. Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Study. Medicines Monitoring Unit. Br J Ophthalmol 2000 Nov; 84(11): 1218–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Evans JM, MacDonald TM, Leese GP, et al. Impact of type 1 and type 2 diabetes on patterns and costs of drug prescribing: a population-based study. Diabetes Care 2000 Jun; 23(6): 770–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Boyle DIR, Cunningham S, Sullivan FM, et al. Technology integration for the provision of population-based equitable patient care: the Tayside Regional Diabetes Network — a brief description. Diabetes NutrMetab 2001; 14: 100–3.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Salzsieder E, Vogt L, Rutscher A, et al. Telematic-based advisory system in diabetes care. 8th workshop of the Diabetes Care Optimization through Information Technology (DOIT) study group; 2001 Sep 7–8; Stirling.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Eysenbach G. Consumer-health informatics. BMJ 2000; 320: 1713–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. The role of e-health and consumer health informatics for evidence-based patient choice in the 21st century. Clin Dermatol 2001; 19: 11–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ 1999; 319: 780–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fox S, Rainie L, Horrigan J, et al. The online health care revolution: how the web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Available at URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/ [Accessed 2003 Jan 6].
  75. 75.
    Shultz EK, Bauman A, Hayward M, et al. Improved care of patients with diabetes through telecommunications. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1992; 670: 141–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gomez EJ, Del Pozo F, Serrano R. DIACRONO: a new portable microcomputer system for diabetes management. Proceedings of the 9th Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers Annual Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 1987, Boston (MA). Boston (MA): IEEE Press, 1231–2.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gomez EJ, Del Pozo F, Hernando E. Telemedicine for diabetes care: the DIABTel approach. Med Inf 1996; 21: 283–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gomez EJ, Hernando E, Garcia A, et al. Evaluation of the Diabtel telemedicine system [abstract]. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2000; 13(4): 250.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bellazzi R, Siviero C, Stefanelli M, et al. Adaptive controllers for intelligent monitoring. Artif Intell Med 1995; 7: 515–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bellazzi R, Larizza C, Montani S, et al. A telemedicine support for diabetes management: the T-IDDM project. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2002 Aug; 69(2): 147–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Albisser AM, Harris RI, Sakkal S, et al. Diabetes intervention in the information age. Med Inform 1996; 21(4): 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Albisser AM, En Chao SC, Parson ID, et al. Information technology and home glucose clamping. Diabetes Technol Ther 2001; 3–3: 377–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ahring KK, Ahring JP, Joyce C, et al. Telephone modem access improves diabetes control in those with insulin-requiring diabetes. Diabetes Care 1992; 15(8): 971–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Biermann E, Dietrich W, Standl E. Are there time and cost savings by using telemanagement forpatients on intensified insulin therapy [abstract]? Diabetes Nutr Metab 2000; 13(4): 250.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Billiard A, Rohmer V, Roques MA, et al. Telematic transmission of computerized blood glucose profiles for IDDM patients. Diabetes Care 1991; 14(2): 130–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Liesenfeld B, Groth T, Renner R, et al. Telemedical care for children and adolescents with diabetes mellitus type 1 reduces HbA1c and hypoglycemias. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2000; 13(4): 248.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Marrero DG, Vandagriff JL, Kronz KK, et al. Using telecommunication technology to manage children with diabetes: the Computer-Linked Outpatient Clinic (CLOC) Study. Diabetes Educ 1995; 21(4): 313–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Marrero DG, Kronz KK, Golden MP, et al. Clinical evaluation of computerassisted self-monitoring of blood glucose system. Diabetes Care 1989; 12(5): 345–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Morrish NJ, Cohen DL, Hicks B, et al. A controlled study of the effect of computer-aided analysis of home blood glucose monitoring on blood glucose control. Diabet Med 1989; 6: 591–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Montani S, Bellazzi R, Quaglini S, et al. Meta-analysis of the effect of the use of computer-based systems on the metabolic control of patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther 2001; 3(3): 347–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Meyerhoff C, Bischof F, Pfeiffer EF. Long-term experiences with a computerized diabetes management and glucose monitoring system in insulin-dependent diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1994; 24: 1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Prendergast J, Bagdade J, Meyes P, et al. Diabetes management with internet augmentation. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer and Diabetes Care, 2000 Sep 8–10: Rochester (MN). Rochester (MN): Mayo Clinic Press, 2000: Report no. MC2470-06: 172.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Levine BA, Clement S, Alaoui A, et al. Diabetes management using the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer and Diabetes Care; 2000 Sep 8-10: Rochester (MN). Rochester (MN): Mayo Clinic Press, 2000: Report no. MC2470-06.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Nigrin DJ, Kohane IS. Glucoweb: a case study of secure, remote biomonitoring and communication. In: Overhage JM, editor. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Symposium; Los Angeles (CA): 2000: 610–4.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Galen RS, Naito HK. A web TV-based internet system of diabetes management. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Computer and Diabetes Care; 2000 Sep 8–10: Rochester (MN). Rochester (MN): Mayo Clinic Press, 2000: Report no. MC2470-06.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Bellazzi R, Montani S, Riva A, et al. Web-based telemedicine systems for homecare: technical issues and experiences. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2001 Mar; 64(3): 175–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hernando ME, Gomez EJ, Garcia A, et al. A multi-access server for the virtual management of diabetes. Proceedings of the fifth Conference of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine; 1999 May: Barcelona. 309–10.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Harno KSR, Pekkarinen T, Kauppinen-Makelin R, et al. A mobile, web-based IT support system in the treatment of newly diagnosed T1DM. 8th workshop of the DOIT study group, 2001 Sep 7–8; Stirling.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Shea S, Starren J, Weinstock RS, et al. Columbia University’s Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Project: rationale and design. Am Med Inform Assoc 2002 Jan–Feb; 9(1): 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Starren J, Hripcsak G, Sengupta S, et al. Columbia University’s Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) project: technical implementation. Am Med Inform Assoc 2002 Jan–Feb; 9(1): 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Bellazzi R, Arcelloni M, Bensa G, et al. Design, implementation and testing of a multi-access service for the management of diabetes mellitus: the M2DM project [abstract]. Telemedicine in care delivery symposium; 2002 Jun 12–16; Pisa.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Gomaa WH, Morrow T, Munterdam P. Technology-based disease management: a low-cost, high-value solution for the management of chronic disease. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2001; 9(10): 577–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Dennis T, Owens D. Transforming local care. J Telemed Telecare 2000; 6 Suppl. 1: S102–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. Evaluation methods in medical informatics. New York: Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Wyatt JC. Clinical data systems. Part III: Developing and evaluating clinical data systems. Lancet 1994; 344: 1682–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems ScienceUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations