BACKGROUND: Manufacturers now incorporate blood glucose (bG) value interpretation tools into their monitoring systems; however, usability of these support tools has not been well studied. We evaluated the utility and perceived benefits of support tool use by individuals with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This 3-arm, randomized, simulation study assessed the impact of use of bG value interpretation support tools on participants' ability to correctly interpret bG values, using 1 of 3 tools: a new tool that uses colored scales with target range indicator (TRI), Colors and Smiley icons (already available). Participants assessed 50 bG values without use of any tool and repeated the assessment using 1 of the 3 tool configurations. Changes in percentage of correct responses when using a support tool and user perceptions were assessed. RESULTS: Data sets from 140 participants were analyzed. Increases in correct responses were seen in all study groups but most notably in the TRI group (26%, P < .001) versus the Colors (3%, P = .018) and Smiley icons (6%, P < .001) groups. Significant improvements in confidence were seen among TRI users ( P = .023) but not among other tool users ( P > .627). Most TRI users felt confident (94%), agreed the tool will help them identify high and low values (96%) and will help them to make correct insulin dosage decisions (80%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the TRI significantly increases users' ability to correctly and confidently determine their glycemic risk when self-monitoring bG levels. This suggests the tool may offer clinical value to individuals with T1D and T2D.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Manufacturers now incorporate blood glucose (bG) value interpretation tools into their monitoring systems; however, usability of these support tools has not been well studied. We evaluated the utility and perceived benefits of support tool use by individuals with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This 3-arm, randomized, simulation study assessed the impact of use of bG value interpretation support tools on participants' ability to correctly interpret bG values, using 1 of 3 tools: a new tool that uses colored scales with target range indicator (TRI), Colors and Smiley icons (already available). Participants assessed 50 bG values without use of any tool and repeated the assessment using 1 of the 3 tool configurations. Changes in percentage of correct responses when using a support tool and user perceptions were assessed. RESULTS: Data sets from 140 participants were analyzed. Increases in correct responses were seen in all study groups but most notably in the TRI group (26%, P < .001) versus the Colors (3%, P = .018) and Smiley icons (6%, P < .001) groups. Significant improvements in confidence were seen among TRI users ( P = .023) but not among other tool users ( P > .627). Most TRI users felt confident (94%), agreed the tool will help them identify high and low values (96%) and will help them to make correct insulin dosage decisions (80%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the TRI significantly increases users' ability to correctly and confidently determine their glycemic risk when self-monitoring bG levels. This suggests the tool may offer clinical value to individuals with T1D and T2D.
Entities:
Keywords:
SMBG; electronic decision support; insulin; self-monitoring of blood glucose; type 1 diabetes; type 2 diabetes
Authors: M Franciosi; G Lucisano; F Pellegrini; A Cantarello; A Consoli; L Cucco; R Ghidelli; G Sartore; L Sciangula; A Nicolucci Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: William H Polonsky; Lawrence Fisher; Charles H Schikman; Deborah A Hinnen; Christopher G Parkin; Zhihong Jelsovsky; Bettina Petersen; Matthias Schweitzer; Robin S Wagner Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 19.112