OBJECTIVE: The objective was to explore psychosocial experiences of closed loop technology for adults, children, and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in two multicenter, free-living, randomized crossover home studies. METHODS: Participants using insulin pump therapy were randomized to either 12 weeks of automated closed-loop glucose control, then 12 weeks of sensor augmented insulin pump therapy (open loop), or vice versa. Closed loop was used for 24 hours by adults and overnight only by children and adolescents. Participants completed the Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ) periodically and shared their views in semistructured interviews. This analysis characterizes the impact of the technology, positive and negative aspects of living with the device, alongside participants' expectations, hopes, and anxieties. RESULTS:Participants were 32 adults, age 38.6 ±9.6 years, 55% male, and 26 children, mean age 12 years (range 6-18 years), 54% male. DTQ results indicated moderately favorable impact of, and satisfaction with, both open and closed loop interventions, but little evidence of a comparative advantage of either. Key positive themes included perceived improved blood glucose control, improved general well-being, particularly on waking, improved sleep, reduced burden of diabetes, and visibility of data. Key negative themes included having to carry around the equipment and dislike of the pump and second cannula (ie, sensor) inserted. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported a positive experience of the closed loop technology. Results are consistent with previous research with size of equipment continuing to be a problem. Progress is being made in the usability of the closed-loop system.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to explore psychosocial experiences of closed loop technology for adults, children, and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in two multicenter, free-living, randomized crossover home studies. METHODS:Participants using insulin pump therapy were randomized to either 12 weeks of automated closed-loop glucose control, then 12 weeks of sensor augmented insulin pump therapy (open loop), or vice versa. Closed loop was used for 24 hours by adults and overnight only by children and adolescents. Participants completed the Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ) periodically and shared their views in semistructured interviews. This analysis characterizes the impact of the technology, positive and negative aspects of living with the device, alongside participants' expectations, hopes, and anxieties. RESULTS:Participants were 32 adults, age 38.6 ± 9.6 years, 55% male, and 26 children, mean age 12 years (range 6-18 years), 54% male. DTQ results indicated moderately favorable impact of, and satisfaction with, both open and closed loop interventions, but little evidence of a comparative advantage of either. Key positive themes included perceived improved blood glucose control, improved general well-being, particularly on waking, improved sleep, reduced burden of diabetes, and visibility of data. Key negative themes included having to carry around the equipment and dislike of the pump and second cannula (ie, sensor) inserted. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported a positive experience of the closed loop technology. Results are consistent with previous research with size of equipment continuing to be a problem. Progress is being made in the usability of the closed-loop system.
Entities:
Keywords:
artificial pancreas; closed loop; psychosocial; type 1 diabetes
Authors: Katharine D Barnard; Korey K Hood; Jill Weissberg-Benchell; Chris Aldred; Nick Oliver; Lori Laffel Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: O Kordonouri; E Pankowska; B Rami; T Kapellen; R Coutant; R Hartmann; K Lange; M Knip; T Danne Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2010-08-14 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Irl B Hirsch; Jill Abelseth; Bruce W Bode; Jerome S Fischer; Francine R Kaufman; John Mastrototaro; Christopher G Parkin; Howard A Wolpert; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: William V Tamborlane; Roy W Beck; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Irl B Hirsch; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H Thabit; M Tauschmann; J M Allen; L Leelarathna; S Hartnell; M E Wilinska; C L Acerini; S Dellweg; C Benesch; L Heinemann; J K Mader; M Holzer; H Kojzar; J Exall; J Yong; J Pichierri; K D Barnard; C Kollman; P Cheng; P C Hindmarsh; F M Campbell; S Arnolds; T R Pieber; M L Evans; D B Dunger; R Hovorka Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Katharine D Barnard; Jordan E Pinsker; Nick Oliver; Annabel Astle; Eyal Dassau; David Kerr Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Mattia Zanon; Martin Mueller; Pavel Zakharov; Mark S Talary; Marc Donath; Werner A Stahel; Andreas Caduff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-11-16
Authors: Persis V Commissariat; Lindsay C Roethke; Jennifer L Finnegan; Zijing Guo; Lisa K Volkening; Deborah A Butler; Eyal Dassau; Stuart A Weinzimer; Lori M Laffel Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 4.866