Katharine Barnard1, Vincent Crabtree2, Peter Adolfsson3, Melanie Davies4, David Kerr5, Amy Kraus6, Danielle Gianferante6, Elizabeth Bevilacqua6, George Serbedzija6. 1. Faculty of Health & Social Science, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK kbarnard@bournemouth.ac.uk. 2. JDRF, New York, NY, USA. 3. Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Hospital of Halland, Kungsbacka, Sweden. 4. Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, UK. 5. William Sansum Diabetes Center, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. 6. T1D Exchange, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to explore the impact of diabetes-related technology to ensure that such devices are used in a way that returns maximum benefit from a medical and psychological perspective. METHOD: Spouses and caregivers of people with type 1 diabetes were invited to complete an online questionnaire about their experiences with diabetes technologies used by their family members. Participants were recruited via the Glu online community website. Questions explored impact on daily living, frequency and severity of hypoglycemia, and diabetes-related distress. RESULTS: In all, 100 parents/caregivers and 74 partners participated in this survey. Average (mean) duration of living with a person with type 1 diabetes was 16 years (SD = 13) for partners, with duration of diabetes for children being 4.2 ± 3.2 years. Average duration of current therapy was 8.3 ± 7.3 years for adults and 3.4 ± 2.9 years for children. Of the participants, 86% partners and 82% parents/caregivers reported diabetes technology had made it easier for their family members to achieve blood glucose targets. Compared to partners, parents/caregivers reported more negative emotions (P < .001) and decreased well-being (P < .001) related to their family members type 1 diabetes. Diabetes-related distress was common, as was sleep disturbance associated with device alarms and fear of hypoglycemia. Reduced frequency and severity of hypoglycemia related to device use was reported by approximately half of participants. CONCLUSION: There is little doubt about the medical benefit of diabetes technologies and their uptake is increasing but some downsides were reported. Barriers to uptake of technologies lie beyond the mechanics of diabetes management. Supporting users in using diabetes technology to achieve the best possible glycemic control, in the context of their own life, is crucial. Furthermore, understanding these issues with input from the type 1 diabetes community including family members and caregivers will help innovation and design of new technology.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to explore the impact of diabetes-related technology to ensure that such devices are used in a way that returns maximum benefit from a medical and psychological perspective. METHOD: Spouses and caregivers of people with type 1 diabetes were invited to complete an online questionnaire about their experiences with diabetes technologies used by their family members. Participants were recruited via the Glu online community website. Questions explored impact on daily living, frequency and severity of hypoglycemia, and diabetes-related distress. RESULTS: In all, 100 parents/caregivers and 74 partners participated in this survey. Average (mean) duration of living with a person with type 1 diabetes was 16 years (SD = 13) for partners, with duration of diabetes for children being 4.2 ± 3.2 years. Average duration of current therapy was 8.3 ± 7.3 years for adults and 3.4 ± 2.9 years for children. Of the participants, 86% partners and 82% parents/caregivers reported diabetes technology had made it easier for their family members to achieve blood glucose targets. Compared to partners, parents/caregivers reported more negative emotions (P < .001) and decreased well-being (P < .001) related to their family members type 1 diabetes. Diabetes-related distress was common, as was sleep disturbance associated with device alarms and fear of hypoglycemia. Reduced frequency and severity of hypoglycemia related to device use was reported by approximately half of participants. CONCLUSION: There is little doubt about the medical benefit of diabetes technologies and their uptake is increasing but some downsides were reported. Barriers to uptake of technologies lie beyond the mechanics of diabetes management. Supporting users in using diabetes technology to achieve the best possible glycemic control, in the context of their own life, is crucial. Furthermore, understanding these issues with input from the type 1 diabetes community including family members and caregivers will help innovation and design of new technology.
Authors: Nihat Baysal; Fraser Cameron; Bruce A Buckingham; Darrell M Wilson; H Peter Chase; David M Maahs; B Wayne Bequette Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-10-14
Authors: Jessica T Markowitz; Katherine Pratt; Jyoti Aggarwal; Lisa K Volkening; Lori M B Laffel Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Maartie de Wit; Frans Pouwer; Reinoud J B J Gemke; Henriette A Delemarre-van de Waal; Frank J Snoek Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Amin Sharifi; Andrea Varsavsky; Johanna Ulloa; Jodie C Horsburgh; Sybil A McAuley; Balasubramanian Krishnamurthy; Alicia J Jenkins; Peter G Colman; Glenn M Ward; Richard J MacIsaac; Rajiv Shah; David N O'Neal Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-05-03
Authors: Jenise C Wong; Nicole C Foster; David M Maahs; Dan Raghinaru; Richard M Bergenstal; Andrew J Ahmann; Anne L Peters; Bruce W Bode; Grazia Aleppo; Irl B Hirsch; Lora Kleis; H Peter Chase; Stephanie N DuBose; Kellee M Miller; Roy W Beck; Saleh Adi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Oliver Schnell; Katharine Barnard; Richard Bergenstal; Emanuele Bosi; Satish Garg; Bruno Guerci; Thomas Haak; Irl B Hirsch; Linong Ji; Shashank R Joshi; Maarten Kamp; Lori Laffel; Chantal Mathieu; William H Polonsky; Frank Snoek; Philip Home Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Michelle L Litchman; Sarah E Wawrzynski; Nancy A Allen; Eunjin L Tracy; Caitlin S Kelly; Vicki S Helgeson; Cynthia A Berg Journal: Diabetes Spectr Date: 2019-08
Authors: Marisa E Hilliard; Charles G Minard; David G Marrero; Maartje de Wit; Stephanie N DuBose; Alandra Verdejo; Sarah S Jaser; Davida Kruger; Roshanak Monzavi; Viral N Shah; R Paul Wadwa; Ruth S Weinstock; Debbe Thompson; Viena T Cao; Barbara J Anderson Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 1.569