| Literature DB >> 26581230 |
Claudia Ziegler1, Alon Liberman2, Revital Nimri2, Ido Muller2, Simona Klemenčič3, Nataša Bratina3, Sarah Bläsig1, Kerstin Remus1, Moshe Phillip2, Tadej Battelino3, Olga Kordonouri1, Thomas Danne1, Karin Lange4.
Abstract
AIMS: This study assesses the impact of using an AP-system at home on fear of hypoglycaemia. In addition, satisfaction and acceptance of the new technology are evaluated.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26581230 PMCID: PMC4637058 DOI: 10.1155/2015/590308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Res Impact factor: 4.011
Baseline patient characteristics.
| Children (10–14 yrs) | Adolescents | Adults |
| Israel | Slovenia | Germany |
| All | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 12.3 | 15.6 | 31.22 | 17.45 | 22.07 | 20.96 | 0.286 | 19.51 | |
|
| |||||||||
| Male (%) | 50 | 60 | 52.6 | 0.806 | 55.2 | 46.7 | 60.0 | 0.757 | 54 |
|
| |||||||||
| HbA1c (%), mean (SD) | 7.97 | 7.93 | 7.78 | 0.679 | 8.03 | 7.89 | 7.63 | 0.184 | 7.89 |
|
| |||||||||
| HbA1c (mmol/mol, IFCC), mean (SD) | 63.50 | 63.15 | 61.44 | 64.17 | 62.78 | 59.84 | 62.72 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| Diabetes duration (years), mean (SD) | 7.25 | 8.78 | 19.24 | 0.000 | 9.21 | 13.92 | 14.03 | 0.094 | 11.63 |
|
| |||||||||
| CSII duration (years), mean (SD) | 5.68 | 6.32 | 8.96 | 0.036 | 5.77 | 7.45 | 8.74 | 0.075 | 6.95 |
|
| |||||||||
| Regular sensor use (%) | 65 | 55 | 26.3 | 0.044 | 62.1 | 53.3 | 20.0 | 0.028 | 49.2 |
Figure 1Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS) before and after 4 nights with the MD-Logic artificial pancreas in home setting (n = 58).
Acceptance of an artificial pancreas analysis.
| Pre | Post | Delta |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total acceptance | All | 4.69 (0.87) | 4.76 (1.06) | 0.07 (0.77) | 0.501 |
| Intention to Use | All | 4.7 (1.25) | 4.76 (1.64) | 0.01 (1.44) | 0.964 |
| Perceived Usefulness | All | 4.66 (0.91) | 4.67 (1.07) | 0.01 (0.86) | 0.940 |
| Perceived Ease of Use | All | 4.64 (0.94) | 5.06 (1.09) | 0.42 (0.95) | 0.002 |
|
| |||||
| Total acceptance | Children ( | 4.54 (1.04) | 4.54 (1.15) | −0.00 (0.67) | |
| Adolescents ( | 4.69 (0.77) | 4.88 (1.18) | 0.19 (0.86) | ||
| Adults ( | 4.81 (0.82) | 4.83 (0.86) | 0.01 (0.80) | ||
Values are expressed as mean (SD).
Association between acceptance of an artificial pancreas and regular sensor use initial.
| Regular sensor use | Regular sensor use |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||
| Total acceptance | All | 5.07 (0.59), | 4.34 (0.93), | 0.000 |
| Intention to Use | All | 5.20 (1.01), | 4.33 (1.32), | 0.007 |
| Perceived Usefulness | All | 5.02 (0.67), | 4.34 (0.98), | 0.004 |
| Perceived Ease of Use | All | 5.03 (0.77), | 4.28 (0.96), | 0.004 |
|
| ||||
| Total acceptance | Children | 5.05 (0.81), | 3.80 (0.90), | |
| Adolescents | 5.09 (0.42), | 4.14 (0.81), | ||
| Adults | 5.07 (0.49), | 4.72 (0.90), | ||
Values are expressed as mean (SD), n.
Satisfaction scores after 4 nights with the MD-Logic artificial pancreas in home setting.
| Children | Adolescents | Adults |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total satisfaction | 2.96 (0.52) | 3.06 (0.60) | 3.04 (0.53) | 0.848 |
| Perceived Usefulness of Alarms | 2.84 (0.88) | 2.74 (0.80) | 2.87 (0.64) | 0.872 |
| Trust | 2.95 (0.70) | 3.22 (0.80) | 3.07 (0.88) | 0.600 |
| Ease of Use | 2.85 (0.83) | 3.35 (0.60) | 3.60 (0.55) | 0.004 |
| Satisfaction | 3.15 (0.69) | 3.25 (0.91) | 3.07 (0.75) | 0.804 |
| Freedom | 3.03 (0.66) | 2.58 (0.95) | 2.37 (1.01) | 0.068 |
Values are expressed as mean (SD).