Anthony T Vesco1, Aneta M Jedraszko1, Kimberly P Garza1, Jill Weissberg-Benchell1,2. 1. 1 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. 2 Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial impact research of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) among adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is limited. The present study assesses associations between diabetes technology use on adolescent- and parent-perceived diabetes-specific distress and A1c. METHOD: Adolescents with T1D and parents (N = 1040; primarily mothers) completed measures of diabetes distress. Adolescents were categorized by technology use: CGM Alone, CSII Alone, CGM+CSII, or No Technology. ANOVA, regression, and Cohen's d were used for group comparisons on measures of diabetes distress and A1c. Analyses also compared groups on clinical elevations of distress. RESULTS: CGM use was associated with less adolescent distress compared to No Technology ( d = 0.59), CGM+CSII ( d = 0.26), and CSII Alone ( d = 0.29). Results were similar but with smaller effect size for parent-reported distress, although CGM+CSII showed equivocal association with parent distress compared to No Technology ( d = 0.18). CGM Alone was associated with lower A1c compared to No Technology ( d = 0.48), to CSII Alone ( d = 0.37), and was comparable to CGM+CSII ( d = 0.03). CGM+CSII conferred advantage over CSII Alone ( d = 0.34). Clinical elevation of distress was associated with not using any technology particularly for adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Technology use is associated with lower adolescent distress than lower parent distress. CGM Alone is associated with lower adolescent and parent distress than CSII or CGM+CSII. This appears to be clinically meaningful based on cut scores for measures. CGM is associated with lower A1c independent of being used alone or with CSII.
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial impact research of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) among adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is limited. The present study assesses associations between diabetes technology use on adolescent- and parent-perceived diabetes-specific distress and A1c. METHOD: Adolescents with T1D and parents (N = 1040; primarily mothers) completed measures of diabetes distress. Adolescents were categorized by technology use: CGM Alone, CSII Alone, CGM+CSII, or No Technology. ANOVA, regression, and Cohen's d were used for group comparisons on measures of diabetes distress and A1c. Analyses also compared groups on clinical elevations of distress. RESULTS: CGM use was associated with less adolescent distress compared to No Technology ( d = 0.59), CGM+CSII ( d = 0.26), and CSII Alone ( d = 0.29). Results were similar but with smaller effect size for parent-reported distress, although CGM+CSII showed equivocal association with parent distress compared to No Technology ( d = 0.18). CGM Alone was associated with lower A1c compared to No Technology ( d = 0.48), to CSII Alone ( d = 0.37), and was comparable to CGM+CSII ( d = 0.03). CGM+CSII conferred advantage over CSII Alone ( d = 0.34). Clinical elevation of distress was associated with not using any technology particularly for adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Technology use is associated with lower adolescent distress than lower parent distress. CGM Alone is associated with lower adolescent and parent distress than CSII or CGM+CSII. This appears to be clinically meaningful based on cut scores for measures. CGM is associated with lower A1c independent of being used alone or with CSII.
Entities:
Keywords:
adolescent; distress; glucose sensor; insulin pump; type 1 diabetes
Authors: Kellee M Miller; Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie N DuBose; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Steven M Willi; Kellee M Miller; Linda A DiMeglio; Georgeanna J Klingensmith; Jill H Simmons; William V Tamborlane; Kristen J Nadeau; Julie M Kittelsrud; Peter Huckfeldt; Roy W Beck; Terri H Lipman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Daniel J DeSalvo; Kellee M Miller; Julia M Hermann; David M Maahs; Sabine E Hofer; Mark A Clements; Eggert Lilienthal; Jennifer L Sherr; Martin Tauschmann; Reinhard W Holl Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Stamatina Zavitsanou; Jennifer Massa; Sunil Deshpande; Jordan E Pinsker; Mei Mei Church; Camille Andre; Francis J Doyle Iii; Alicia Michelson; Jamie Creason; Eyal Dassau; David M Eisenberg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Rodolfo J Galindo; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert J Rushakoff; Ananda Basu; Suzanne Lohnes; James H Nichols; Elias K Spanakis; Juan Espinoza; Nadine E Palermo; Dessa Garnett Awadjie; Leigh Bak; Bruce Buckingham; Curtiss B Cook; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Roman Hovorka; Nestoras Mathioudakis; Tonya Newman; David N O'Neal; Michaela Rickert; David B Sacks; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Amisha Wallia; Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; Julia Han; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-28
Authors: Sara Boucher; Miranda Blackwell; Barbara Galland; Martin de Bock; Hamish Crocket; Esko Wiltshire; Paul Tomlinson; Jenny Rayns; Benjamin Wheeler Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord Date: 2019-12-07
Authors: Katherine W Bauer; Marisa E Hilliard; Dana Albright; Sharon L Lo; Emily M Fredericks; Alison L Miller Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Karishma A Datye; Daniel R Tilden; Angelee M Parmar; Eveline R Goethals; Sarah S Jaser Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Anthony T Vesco; Kelsey R Howard; Lindsay M Anderson; Jaclyn L Papadakis; Korey K Hood; Jill Weissberg-Benchell Journal: Can J Diabetes Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.774