BACKGROUND: Little is known of patient acceptance of an artificial pancreas (AP). The purpose of this study was to investigate future acceptance of an AP and its determinants. METHODS: Patients with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy were interviewed using questions based on the technology acceptance model and completed the diabetes treatment and satisfaction questionnaire (DTSQ). RESULTS: Twenty-two adults with type 1 diabetes participated. Half of the patients were followed in a university hospital, and the others were under treatment in an affiliated teaching hospital. Half of the patients were male. The mean DTSQ score was 29 (range 23-33). The AP was perceived as likely to be useful. Perceived advantages were a stable glucose regulation, less need for self-monitoring of blood glucose, relief of daily concerns, and time saving. Participants were confident in their capability to use the system. Although many participants (58%) had been reluctant to start continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, the majority (79%) felt they would have no barriers to start using the AP. Trust in the AP was related to the quality of glucose control it would provide. Almost everyone expressed the intention to use the new system when available, even if it would initially not cover 24/24 hours. CONCLUSION: The overall attitude on the AP was positive. Intention to use was dependent on trust in the AP, which was related to the quality of glucose control provided by the AP. (c) 2010 Diabetes Technology Society.
BACKGROUND: Little is known of patient acceptance of an artificial pancreas (AP). The purpose of this study was to investigate future acceptance of an AP and its determinants. METHODS:Patients with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy were interviewed using questions based on the technology acceptance model and completed the diabetes treatment and satisfaction questionnaire (DTSQ). RESULTS: Twenty-two adults with type 1 diabetes participated. Half of the patients were followed in a university hospital, and the others were under treatment in an affiliated teaching hospital. Half of the patients were male. The mean DTSQ score was 29 (range 23-33). The AP was perceived as likely to be useful. Perceived advantages were a stable glucose regulation, less need for self-monitoring of blood glucose, relief of daily concerns, and time saving. Participants were confident in their capability to use the system. Although many participants (58%) had been reluctant to start continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, the majority (79%) felt they would have no barriers to start using the AP. Trust in the AP was related to the quality of glucose control it would provide. Almost everyone expressed the intention to use the new system when available, even if it would initially not cover 24/24 hours. CONCLUSION: The overall attitude on the AP was positive. Intention to use was dependent on trust in the AP, which was related to the quality of glucose control provided by the AP. (c) 2010 Diabetes Technology Society.
Authors: R P L M Hoogma; P J Hammond; R Gomis; D Kerr; D Bruttomesso; K P Bouter; K J Wiefels; H de la Calle; D H Schweitzer; M Pfohl; E Torlone; L G Krinelke; G B Bolli Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Ravi Retnakaran; Jackie Hochman; J Hans DeVries; Helene Hanaire-Broutin; Robert J Heine; Vincent Melki; Bernard Zinman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Marilyn D Ritholz; Arlene Smaldone; Jarim Lee; Astrid Castillo; Howard Wolpert; Katie Weinger Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: William V Tamborlane; Roy W Beck; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Irl B Hirsch; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Esti Iturralde; Molly L Tanenbaum; Sarah J Hanes; Sakinah C Suttiratana; Jodie M Ambrosino; Trang T Ly; David M Maahs; Diana Naranjo; Natalie Walders-Abramson; Stuart A Weinzimer; Bruce A Buckingham; Korey K Hood Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Molly L Tanenbaum; Esti Iturralde; Sarah J Hanes; Sakinah C Suttiratana; Jodie M Ambrosino; Trang T Ly; David M Maahs; Diana Naranjo; Natalie Walders-Abramson; Stuart A Weinzimer; Bruce A Buckingham; Korey K Hood Journal: J Health Psychol Date: 2017-07-12
Authors: Wendy C Bevier; Serena M Fuller; Ryan P Fuller; Richard R Rubin; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Lois Jovanovič; Howard C Zisser Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 6.118