BACKGROUND: Many people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) report barriers to using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Diabetes care providers may have their own barriers to promoting CGM uptake. The goal of this study was to develop clinician "personas" with regard to readiness to promote CGM uptake. METHODS: Diabetes care providers who treat people with T1D (N = 209) completed a survey on perceived patient barriers to device uptake, technology attitudes, and characteristics and barriers specific to their clinical practice. K-means cluster analyses grouped the sample by CGM barriers and attitudes. ANOVAs and chi-square tests assessed group differences on provider and patient characteristics. The authors assigned descriptive names for each persona. RESULTS: Analyses yielded three clinician personas regarding readiness to promote CGM uptake. Ready clinicians (20% of sample; 24% physicians, 38% certified diabetes educators/CDEs) had positive technology attitudes, had clinic time to work with patients using CGM, and found it easy to keep up with technology advances. In comparison, Cautious clinicians (41% of sample; 17% physicians, 53% CDEs) perceived that their patients had many barriers to adopting CGM and had less time than the Ready group to work with patients using CGM data. Not Yet Ready clinicians (40% of sample; 9% physicians; 79% CDEs) had negative technology attitudes and the least clinic time to work with CGM data. They found it difficult to keep up with technology advances. CONCLUSION: Some diabetes clinicians may benefit from tailored interventions and additional time and resources to empower them to help facilitate increased uptake of CGM technology.
BACKGROUND: Many people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) report barriers to using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Diabetes care providers may have their own barriers to promoting CGM uptake. The goal of this study was to develop clinician "personas" with regard to readiness to promote CGM uptake. METHODS:Diabetes care providers who treat people with T1D (N = 209) completed a survey on perceived patient barriers to device uptake, technology attitudes, and characteristics and barriers specific to their clinical practice. K-means cluster analyses grouped the sample by CGM barriers and attitudes. ANOVAs and chi-square tests assessed group differences on provider and patient characteristics. The authors assigned descriptive names for each persona. RESULTS: Analyses yielded three clinician personas regarding readiness to promote CGM uptake. Ready clinicians (20% of sample; 24% physicians, 38% certified diabetes educators/CDEs) had positive technology attitudes, had clinic time to work with patients using CGM, and found it easy to keep up with technology advances. In comparison, Cautious clinicians (41% of sample; 17% physicians, 53% CDEs) perceived that their patients had many barriers to adopting CGM and had less time than the Ready group to work with patients using CGM data. Not Yet Ready clinicians (40% of sample; 9% physicians; 79% CDEs) had negative technology attitudes and the least clinic time to work with CGM data. They found it difficult to keep up with technology advances. CONCLUSION: Some diabetes clinicians may benefit from tailored interventions and additional time and resources to empower them to help facilitate increased uptake of CGM technology.
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: 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: 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: Molly L Tanenbaum; Laurel H Messer; Christine A Wu; Marina Basina; Bruce A Buckingham; Danielle Hessler; Shelagh A Mulvaney; David M Maahs; Korey K Hood Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 8.180
Authors: Andrew James Williams; Tamaryn Menneer; Mansi Sidana; Tim Walker; Kath Maguire; Markus Mueller; Cheryl Paterson; Michael Leyshon; Catherine Leyshon; Emma Seymour; Zoë Howard; Emma Bland; Karyn Morrissey; Timothy J Taylor Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2021-02-16
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