scholarly journals Practical Aspects of Diabetes Technology Use: Continuous Glucose Monitors, Insulin Pumps, and Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

2021 ◽  
pp. 100282
Author(s):  
Brynn E. Marks ◽  
Kristen M. Williams ◽  
Jordan S. Sherwood ◽  
Melissa S. Putman
Keyword(s):  
Technology Use ◽  
Insulin Delivery ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Insulin Pumps ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitors

Diabetes Technology Experiences Among Latinx and Non-Latinx Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110292
Author(s):  
David Tsai ◽  
Jaquelin Flores Garcia ◽  
Jennifer L. Fogel ◽  
Choo Phei Wee ◽  
Mark W. Reid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Young People ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitors

Background: Diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM), have been associated with improved glycemic control and increased quality of life for young people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, few young people use these devices, especially those from minority ethnic groups. Current literature predominantly focuses on white patients with private insurance and does not report experiences of diverse pediatric patients with limited resources. Methods: To explore potential differences between Latinx and non-Latinx patients, English- and Spanish-speaking young people with T1D ( n = 173, ages 11-25 years) were surveyed to assess attitudes about and barriers to diabetes technologies using the Technology Use Attitudes and Barriers to Device Use questionnaires. Results: Both English- and Spanish-speaking participants who identified as Latinx were more likely to have public insurance ( P = .0001). English-speaking Latinx participants reported higher Hemoglobin A1c values ( P = .003), less CGM use ( P = .002), and more negative attitudes about technology (generally, P = .003; and diabetes-specific, P < .001) than either non-Latinx or Spanish-speaking Latinx participants. Barriers were encountered with equivalent frequency across groups. Conclusions: Latinx English-speaking participants had less positive attitudes toward general and diabetes technology than Latinx Spanish-speaking and non-Latinx English-speaking peers, and differences in CGM use were associated with socioeconomic status. Additional work is needed to design and deliver diabetes interventions that are of interest to and supportive of patients from diverse ethnic and language backgrounds.

Technology Integration: The Role of the Diabetes Care and Education Specialist in Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Isaacs ◽  
Carla Cox ◽  
Kathy Schwab ◽  
Tamara K. Oser ◽  
Joanne Rinker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Technology Implementation ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitors ◽  
The Individual

Purpose Technology is rapidly evolving and has become an integral component of diabetes care. People with diabetes and clinicians are harnessing a variety of technologies, including connected blood glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, automated insulin delivery systems, data-sharing platforms, telehealth, remote monitoring, and smartphone mobile applications to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life. Although diabetes technology use is associated with improved outcomes, this is enhanced when the person using it is knowledgeable and actively engaged; simply wearing the device or downloading an app may not automatically translate into health benefits. The diabetes care and education specialist (DCES) has a central role in defining and establishing a technology-enabled practice setting that is efficient and sustainable. The purpose of this article is to describe the role of the DCES in technology implementation and to demonstrate the value of diabetes technology in both the care of the individual and as a tool to support population-level health improvements. Conclusion By following the recommendations in this article, DCESs can serve as technology champions in their respective practices and work to reduce therapeutic inertia while improving health outcomes and providing patient-centered care for the populations they serve.

scholarly journals Psychosocial Aspects and Diabetes Technology – Head to Head or Hand in Hand?

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine D Barnard ◽  
◽  
Jill Weissberg-Benchell ◽  
Keyword(s):  
User Experience ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Insulin Delivery ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Psychosocial Aspects ◽  
Medical Outcomes ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
The Relationship

Diabetes technologies have progressed rapidly over recent years with a dedicated conference entering its 10th year, stronger and larger than ever. The long-awaited automated insulin delivery systems represent the latest devices in engineering excellence however it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that there is a person at the end of this technology, simply wanting a better life with diabetes with reduced diabetes burden. This commentary explores the relationship between technology and the psychosocial aspects of that technology in the context of user experience, clinical guidelines and the inclusion of psychosocial aspects alongside medical outcomes in research trials.

Diabetes Technology Meeting 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 916-960
Author(s):  
Trisha Shang ◽  
Jennifer Y. Zhang ◽  
B. Wayne Bequette ◽  
Jennifer K. Raymond ◽  
Gerard Coté ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Insulin Delivery ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
Live Demonstration ◽  
Diabetes Monitoring ◽  
Regulatory Trends

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting on November 12 to November 14, 2020. This meeting brought together speakers to cover various perspectives about the field of diabetes technology. The meeting topics included artificial intelligence, digital health, telemedicine, glucose monitoring, regulatory trends, metrics for expressing glycemia, pharmaceuticals, automated insulin delivery systems, novel insulins, metrics for diabetes monitoring, and discriminatory aspects of diabetes technology. A live demonstration was presented.

A Decade of Disparities in Diabetes Technology Use and HbA1c in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: A Trans-Atlantic Comparison

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ananta Addala ◽  
Marie Auzanneau ◽  
Kellee Miller ◽  
Werner Maier ◽  
Nicole Foster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Hemoglobin A1c ◽  
Diabetes Technology ◽  
Design And Methods ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes

<b>Objective:</b> As diabetes technology use in youth increases worldwide, inequalities in access may exacerbate disparities in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We hypothesized an increasing gap in diabetes technology use by socioeconomic status (SES) would be associated with increased HbA1c disparities. <p> </p> <p><b>Research Design and Methods: </b>Participants aged <18 years with diabetes duration ≥1 year in the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange (T1DX, US, n=16,457) and Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV, Germany, n=39,836) registries were categorized into lowest (Q1) to highest (Q5) SES quintiles. Multiple regression analyses compared the relationship of SES quintiles with diabetes technology use and HbA1c from 2010-2012 and 2016-2018. </p> <p> </p> <p><b>Results: </b>HbA1c was higher in participants with lower SES (in 2010-2012 & 2016-2018, respectively: 8.0% & 7.8% in Q1 and 7.6% & 7.5% in Q5 for DPV; and 9.0% & 9.3% in Q1 and 7.8% & 8.0% in Q5 for T1DX). For DPV, the association between SES and HbA1c did not change between the two time periods, whereas for T1DX, disparities in HbA1c by SES increased significantly (p<0.001). After adjusting for technology use, results for DPV did not change whereas the increase in T1DX was no longer significant.</p> <p> </p> <p><b>Conclusions: </b>Although causal conclusions cannot be drawn, diabetes technology use is lowest and HbA1c is highest in those of the lowest SES quintile in the T1DX and this difference for HbA1c broadened in the last decade. Associations of SES with technology use and HbA1c were weaker in the DPV registry. </p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document