Steven James1, Lin Perry2, Robyn Gallagher3, Julia Lowe4. 1. University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia stevenjames_76@yahoo.co.uk. 2. University of Technology Sydney/South East Sydney Local Health District, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia. 3. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various technologies are commonly used to support type 1 diabetes management (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy, continuous glucose monitoring systems, smartphone and tablet applications, and video conferencing) and may foster self-care, communication, and engagement with health care services. Diabetes educators are key professional supporters of this patient group, and ideally positioned to promote and support technology use. The aim of this study was to examine diabetes educators' perceived experiences, supports, and barriers to use of common diabetes-related technologies for people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This qualitative ethnographic study recruited across metropolitan, regional and rural areas of Australia using purposive sampling of Australian Diabetes Educators Association members. Data were collected by semistructured telephone interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants (n = 31) overwhelmingly indicated that overall the use of technology in the care of patients with type 1 diabetes was burdensome for them. They identified 3 themes involving common diabetes-related technologies: access to technology, available support, and technological advances. Overall, these themes demonstrated that while care was usually well intentioned it was more often fragmented and inconsistent. Most often care was provided by a small number of diabetes educators who had technology expertise. CONCLUSIONS: To realize the potential benefits of these relatively new but common diabetes technologies, many diabetes educators need to attain and retain the skills required to deliver this essential component of care. Furthermore, policy and strategy review is required, with reconfiguration of services to better support care delivery.
BACKGROUND: Various technologies are commonly used to support type 1 diabetes management (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy, continuous glucose monitoring systems, smartphone and tablet applications, and video conferencing) and may foster self-care, communication, and engagement with health care services. Diabetes educators are key professional supporters of this patient group, and ideally positioned to promote and support technology use. The aim of this study was to examine diabetes educators' perceived experiences, supports, and barriers to use of common diabetes-related technologies for people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This qualitative ethnographic study recruited across metropolitan, regional and rural areas of Australia using purposive sampling of Australian Diabetes Educators Association members. Data were collected by semistructured telephone interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Participants (n = 31) overwhelmingly indicated that overall the use of technology in the care of patients with type 1 diabetes was burdensome for them. They identified 3 themes involving common diabetes-related technologies: access to technology, available support, and technological advances. Overall, these themes demonstrated that while care was usually well intentioned it was more often fragmented and inconsistent. Most often care was provided by a small number of diabetes educators who had technology expertise. CONCLUSIONS: To realize the potential benefits of these relatively new but common diabetes technologies, many diabetes educators need to attain and retain the skills required to deliver this essential component of care. Furthermore, policy and strategy review is required, with reconfiguration of services to better support care delivery.
Authors: Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Todd T Brown; Nisa Maruthur; Padmini Ranasinghe; Zackary Berger; Yong D Suh; Lisa M Wilson; Elisabeth B Haberl; Jessica Brick; Eric B Bass; Sherita Hill Golden Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: S K McMahon; F L Airey; D A Marangou; K J McElwee; C L Carne; A J Clarey; E A Davis; T W Jones Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: A Nicolucci; A Maione; M Franciosi; R Amoretti; E Busetto; F Capani; D Bruttomesso; P Di Bartolo; A Girelli; F Leonetti; L Morviducci; P Ponzi; E Vitacolonna Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: K Jeitler; K Horvath; A Berghold; T W Gratzer; K Neeser; T R Pieber; A Siebenhofer Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Gregory P Forlenza; Laurel H Messer; Cari Berget; R Paul Wadwa; Kimberly A Driscoll Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Laurel H Messer; Cari Berget; Ashlee Ernst; Lindsey Towers; Robert H Slover; Gregory P Forlenza Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: J Lawton; M Blackburn; J Allen; F Campbell; D Elleri; L Leelarathna; D Rankin; M Tauschmann; H Thabit; R Hovorka Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 2.763
Authors: Barbara Kimbell; David Rankin; Nicole L Ashcroft; Lidiya Varghese; Janet M Allen; Charlotte K Boughton; Fiona Campbell; Atrayee Ghatak; Tabitha Randell; Rachel E J Besser; Nicola Trevelyan; Roman Hovorka; Julia Lawton Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Margaret L Lawson; Kate C Verbeeten; Jennilea M Courtney; Brenda J Bradley; Karen McAssey; Cheril Clarson; Susan Kirsch; Jacqueline R Curtis; Farid H Mahmud; Christine Richardson; Tammy Cooper; Jason Chan; Ken Tang Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 4.866