Telemedicine in Complex Diabetes Management

  • Marie E. McDonnellEmail author
Health Care Delivery Systems and Implementation in Diabetes (ME McDonnell and AR Sadhu, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Health Care Delivery Systems and Implementation in Diabetes


Purpose of Review

Telehealth has the potential to positively transform the quality and cost-effectiveness of complex diabetes management in adults. This review explores the landscape of telemedicine approaches and evidence for incorporation into general practice.

Recent Findings

Telemedicine for diabetes care is feasible based on over 100 randomized clinical trials. Evidence shows modest benefits in A1c lowering and other clinical outcomes that are better sustained over time vs. usual care. While telemedicine interventions are likely cost-effective in diabetes care, more research is needed using implementation science approaches.


Telehealth platforms have been shown to be both feasible and effective for health care delivery in diabetes, although there are many caveats that require tailoring to the institution, clinician, and patient population. Research in diabetes telehealth should focus next on how to increase access to patients who are known to be marginalized from traditional models of health care.


Diabetes Telemedicine Virtual visits Type 1 diabetes Type 2 diabetes Complex diabetes Virtual care 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Marie E. McDonnell declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    American Diabetes, A. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(4):1033–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Health Expenditure, total % of GDP. 2017 1/1/2018; Available from:
  3. 3.
    Hero JO, Blendon RJ, Zaslavsky AM, Campbell AL. Understanding what makes Americans dissatisfied with their health care system: an international comparison. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(3):502–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gregg EW, Williams DE, Geiss L. Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(3):286–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shojania KG, Ranji SR, McDonald KM, Grimshaw JM, Sundaram V, Rushakoff RJ, et al. Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2006;296(4):427–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seaquist ER. Addressing the burden of diabetes. JAMA. 2014;311(22):2267–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study 6. Complications in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients and their association with different clinical and biochemical risk factors. Diabetes Res. 1990;13(1):1–11.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DCCT. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The diabetes control and complications trial research group. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):977–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ashwood JS, Mehrotra A, Cowling D, Uscher-Pines L. Direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase access to care but does not decrease spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):485–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sepah SC, Jiang L, Peters AL. Long-term outcomes of a Web-based diabetes prevention program: 2-year results of a single-arm longitudinal study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(4):e92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rushakoff RJ, Sullivan MM, MacMaster HW, Shah AD, Rajkomar A, Glidden DV, et al. Association between a virtual glucose management service and glycemic control in hospitalized adult patients: an observational study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(9):621–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duffy S, Lee TH. In-person health care as option B. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):104–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vidscrip. A series of videos about a health topic created by your very own healthcare provider [cited 2018 1/1/2018]; Available from:
  14. 14.
    Moy FM, et al. Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD009613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mileski M, Kruse CS, Catalani J, Haderer T. Adopting telemedicine for the self-management of hypertension: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2017;5(4):e41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •Faruque LI, et al. Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ. 2017;189(9):E341–64. In this meta-analysis of 111 trials, telemedicine interventions in diabetes were found overall to result in clinically significant A1c reductions. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •Shea S, et al. A randomized trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care in older, ethnically diverse, medically underserved patients with diabetes mellitus: 5 year results of the IDEATel study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):446–56. This is the first large randomized trial comparing synchronous virtual visits and remote data monitoring (glucose and blood pressure) to usual care in patients with diabetes. The trial demonstrated that the telemedicine approach improved A1c and blood pressure, and patients in the active group were overall more able to sustain improvement. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirkman MS, Briscoe VJ, Clark N, Florez H, Haas LB, Halter JB, et al. Diabetes in older adults: a consensus report. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(12):2342–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, Blonde L, Bloomgarden ZT, Bush MA, et al. Consensus statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of endocrinology on the comprehensive type 2 diabetes management algorithm—2017 executive summary. Endocr Pract. 2017;23(2):207–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    UKPDS. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kempf K, Altpeter B, Berger J, Reuß O, Fuchs M, Schneider M, et al. Efficacy of the telemedical lifestyle intervention program TeLiPro in advanced stages of type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(7):863–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bouchonville MF, Paul MM, Billings J, Kirk JB, Arora S. Taking telemedicine to the next level in diabetes population management: a review of the Endo ECHO model. Curr Diab Rep. 2016;16(10):96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kerfoot BP, Gagnon DR, McMahon GT, Orlander JD, Kurgansky KE, Conlin PR. A team-based online game improves blood glucose control in veterans with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(9):1218–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lauffenburger JC, Lewey J, Jan S, Nanchanatt G, Makanji S, Ferro CA, et al. Rationale and design of the ENhancing outcomes through goal assessment and generating engagement in diabetes mellitus (ENGAGE-DM) pragmatic trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2017;59:57–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lewey J, Wei W, Lauffenburger JC, Makanji S, Chant A, DiGeronimo J, et al. Targeted adherence intervention to reach glycemic control with insulin therapy for patients with diabetes (TARGIT-diabetes): rationale and design of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e016551.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daskivich LP, Vasquez C, Martinez C Jr, Tseng CH, Mangione CM. Implementation and evaluation of a large-scale Teleretinal diabetic retinopathy screening program in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(5):642–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    •Lee SWH, Ooi L, Lai YK. Telemedicine for the management of glycemic control and clinical outcomes of type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:330. This meta-analysis included 38 studies that investigated several telemedicine techniques in type 1 diabetes and found that adults are more likely to benefit than children. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    NEJM Catalyst. Website 2017. Available from: Accessed 2 February 2018.
  29. 29.
    The American Telemedicine Association policy resource center. Website 2018. Available from: Accessed 4 April 2018
  30. 30.
    Kakkar A, Jacobson BC. Failure of an Internet-based health care intervention for colonoscopy preparation: a caveat for investigators. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(14):1374–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yusif S, Hafeez-Baig A, Soar J. e-Health readiness assessment factors and measuring tools: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2017;107:56–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McIntosh JRD, Jay S, Hadden N, Whittaker PJ. Do E-health interventions improve physical activity in young people: a systematic review. Public Health. 2017;148:140–8.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tucker KL, et al. Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2017;14(9):e1002389.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hunter CM, McKinnon RA, Esposito L. News from the NIH: research to evaluate “natural experiments” related to obesity and diabetes. Transl Behav Med. 2014;4(2):127–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Endocrinology Diabetes and HypertensionBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations