Christel Hendrieckx1,2, Lucinda A Poole1,2, Amin Sharifi3, Dilshani Jayawardene3, Margaret M Loh3, Jodie C Horsburgh3, Leon A Bach4,5, Peter G Colman6, Kavita Kumareswaran4, Alicia J Jenkins3,7,8, Richard J MacIsaac3,7, Glenn M Ward3,7, Benyamin Grosman9, Anirban Roy9, David N O'Neal3,7, Jane Speight1,2,10. 1. 1 School of Psychology, Deakin University , Geelong, Victoria, Australia . 2. 2 The Australian Center for Behavioral Research in Diabetes , Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia . 3. 3 Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, St. Vincent's Hospital , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia . 4. 4 Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Alfred Hospital , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia . 5. 5 Department of Medicine, Monash University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia . 6. 6 Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Royal Melbourne Hospital , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia . 7. 7 Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne , St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia . 8. 8 NHMRC Clinical Trials Center, University of Sydney , Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia . 9. 9 Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, California. 10. 10 AHP Research , Hornchurch, Essex, United Kingdom .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This qualitative study explored trial participants' experiences of four nights of in-home closed loop. METHODS:Sixteen adults with type 1 diabetes, who completed a randomized crossover trial, were interviewed after four consecutive nights of closed-loop. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with a coding framework developed to identify the main themes. RESULTS:Participants had a mean age of 42 ± 10 years, nine were women; mean diabetes duration was 27 ± 7 years, and all were using insulin pumps. Overall, first impressions were positive. Participants found closed-loop easy to use and understand. Most experienced more stable overnight glucose levels, although for some these were similar to usual care or higher than they expected. Compared with their usual treatment, they noticed the proactive nature of the closed-loop, being able to predict trends and deliver micro amounts of insulin. Most reported technical glitches or inconveniences during one or more nights, such as transmission problems, problematic connectivity between devices, ongoing alarms despite addressing low glucose levels, and sensor inaccuracy. Remote monitoring by the trial team and their own hypoglycemic awareness contributed to feelings of trust and safety. Although rare, safety concerns were raised, related to feeling unsure whether the system would respond in time to falling glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides relevant insights for implementation of closed-loop in the real world. For people with diabetes who are less familiar with technology, remote monitoring for the first few days may provide reassurance, strengthen their trust/skills, and make closed-loop an acceptable option for more people with type 1 diabetes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This qualitative study explored trial participants' experiences of four nights of in-home closed loop. METHODS: Sixteen adults with type 1 diabetes, who completed a randomized crossover trial, were interviewed after four consecutive nights of closed-loop. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with a coding framework developed to identify the main themes. RESULTS:Participants had a mean age of 42 ± 10 years, nine were women; mean diabetes duration was 27 ± 7 years, and all were using insulin pumps. Overall, first impressions were positive. Participants found closed-loop easy to use and understand. Most experienced more stable overnight glucose levels, although for some these were similar to usual care or higher than they expected. Compared with their usual treatment, they noticed the proactive nature of the closed-loop, being able to predict trends and deliver micro amounts of insulin. Most reported technical glitches or inconveniences during one or more nights, such as transmission problems, problematic connectivity between devices, ongoing alarms despite addressing low glucose levels, and sensor inaccuracy. Remote monitoring by the trial team and their own hypoglycemic awareness contributed to feelings of trust and safety. Although rare, safety concerns were raised, related to feeling unsure whether the system would respond in time to falling glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides relevant insights for implementation of closed-loop in the real world. For people with diabetes who are less familiar with technology, remote monitoring for the first few days may provide reassurance, strengthen their trust/skills, and make closed-loop an acceptable option for more people with type 1 diabetes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artificial pancreas; Experiences; Interviews; Perceptions; Type 1 diabetes
Authors: Katarina Braune; Rayhan A Lal; Lenka Petruželková; Gary Scheiner; Per Winterdijk; Signe Schmidt; Linda Raimond; Korey K Hood; Michael C Riddell; Timothy C Skinner; Klemens Raile; Sufyan Hussain Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Sybil A McAuley; Martin I de Bock; Vijaya Sundararajan; Melissa H Lee; Barbora Paldus; Geoff R Ambler; Leon A Bach; Morton G Burt; Fergus J Cameron; Philip M Clarke; Neale D Cohen; Peter G Colman; Elizabeth A Davis; Jan M Fairchild; Christel Hendrieckx; D Jane Holmes-Walker; Jodie C Horsburgh; Alicia J Jenkins; Joey Kaye; Anthony C Keech; Bruce R King; Kavita Kumareswaran; Richard J MacIsaac; Roland W McCallum; Jennifer A Nicholas; Catriona Sims; Jane Speight; Stephen N Stranks; Steven Trawley; Glenn M Ward; Sara Vogrin; Timothy W Jones; David N O'Neal Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: J Lawton; M Blackburn; D Rankin; J Allen; F Campbell; L Leelarathna; M Tauschmann; H Thabit; M E Wilinska; R Hovorka Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: J Weissberg-Benchell; J B Shapiro; K Hood; L M Laffel; D Naranjo; K Miller; K Barnard Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Julia Lawton; Maxine Blackburn; David Rankin; Janet M Allen; Fiona M Campbell; Lalantha Leelarathna; Martin Tauschmann; Hood Thabit; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Daniela Elleri; Roman Hovorka Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 6.118
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