Tricia S Tang1, Erica M Digby2, Anthony M Wright3, Jeremy H M Chan4, Adel B Mazanderani5, Stuart A Ross6, Hamish G Tildesley7, Augustine M Lee8, Adam S White9, Hugh D Tildesley9. 1. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address: tricia.tang@vch.ca. 2. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. 3. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada. 4. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 5. Saint George's University, Grenada, West Indies. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 7. Dartmouth University, Hanover, NH, USA. 8. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 9. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract
AIMS: To compare treatment satisfaction between real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) and internet-blood glucose monitoring (IBGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin. METHODS: This study recruited 40 patients who completed a parallel randomized controlled trial comparing a RT-CGM to an IBGM. Patients in the RT-CGM group monitored their blood-glucose levels bi-weekly and emailed results to their endocrinologist. Patients in the IBGM group also monitored their blood-glucose levels bi-weekly, but entered their data into an IBGM. Both groups used a secure website to submit blood-glucose readings and to receive feedback from their endocrinologist. Feedback included changes in therapy, suggestions on testing frequency, lifestyle modifications and/or encouragement to continue with no changes. At the end of 6 months, treatment satisfaction was measured using the 8-item Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. In this study, "treatment" refers to the blood glucose monitoring system to which patients were randomized. RESULTS: Thirty-two of the 40 patients completed the treatment satisfaction questionnaire (80%). Compared to the RT-CGM group, the IBGM group reported a significantly higher level of overall treatment satisfaction (24.80 vs. 33.41, p<0.000). Ratings of individual satisfaction components including convenience, flexibility, likelihood of recommending treatment to others, and willingness to continue with treatment were also found to be significantly higher in the IBGM group. CONCLUSION: Patients using IBGM are more satisfied with their blood glucose monitoring system compared to those using RT-CGM.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To compare treatment satisfaction between real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) and internet-blood glucose monitoring (IBGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin. METHODS: This study recruited 40 patients who completed a parallel randomized controlled trial comparing a RT-CGM to an IBGM. Patients in the RT-CGM group monitored their blood-glucose levels bi-weekly and emailed results to their endocrinologist. Patients in the IBGM group also monitored their blood-glucose levels bi-weekly, but entered their data into an IBGM. Both groups used a secure website to submit blood-glucose readings and to receive feedback from their endocrinologist. Feedback included changes in therapy, suggestions on testing frequency, lifestyle modifications and/or encouragement to continue with no changes. At the end of 6 months, treatment satisfaction was measured using the 8-item Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. In this study, "treatment" refers to the blood glucose monitoring system to which patients were randomized. RESULTS: Thirty-two of the 40 patients completed the treatment satisfaction questionnaire (80%). Compared to the RT-CGM group, the IBGM group reported a significantly higher level of overall treatment satisfaction (24.80 vs. 33.41, p<0.000). Ratings of individual satisfaction components including convenience, flexibility, likelihood of recommending treatment to others, and willingness to continue with treatment were also found to be significantly higher in the IBGM group. CONCLUSION:Patients using IBGM are more satisfied with their blood glucose monitoring system compared to those using RT-CGM.
Authors: Na Liu; Jinman Kim; Younhyun Jung; Adani Arisy; Mary Ann Nicdao; Mary Mikaheal; Tanya Baldacchino; Mohamed Khadra; Kamal Sud Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2017-08-29