BACKGROUND: Diabetes devices such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are associated with improved health and quality of life in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to develop different "personas" of adults with T1D in relation to readiness to adopt new diabetes technology. METHODS: Participants were 1498 T1D Exchange participants who completed surveys on barriers to uptake, technology attitudes, and other psychosocial variables. HbA1c data was available from the T1D Exchange for 30% of the sample. K-means cluster analyses grouped the sample by device barriers and attitudes. The authors assigned descriptive labels based on cluster characteristics. ANOVAs and chi-square tests assessed group differences by demographic and psychosocial variables (eg, diabetes duration, diabetes distress). RESULTS: Analyses yielded five distinct personas. The d-Embracers (54% of participants) endorsed few barriers to device use and had the highest rates of device use, lowest HbA1c, and were the least distressed. The Free Rangers (23%) had the most negative technology attitudes. The Data Minimalists (10%) used pumps but had lower CGM use and did not want more diabetes information. The Wary Wearers (11%) had lower overall device use, were younger, more distressed, endorsed many barriers, and had higher HbA1c. The High Distress (3%) group members were the youngest, had the shortest diabetes duration, reported the most barriers, and were the most distressed. CONCLUSION: These clinically meaningful personas of device readiness can inform tailored interventions targeting barriers and psychosocial needs to increase device uptake.
BACKGROUND:Diabetes devices such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are associated with improved health and quality of life in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to develop different "personas" of adults with T1D in relation to readiness to adopt new diabetes technology. METHODS:Participants were 1498 T1D Exchange participants who completed surveys on barriers to uptake, technology attitudes, and other psychosocial variables. HbA1c data was available from the T1D Exchange for 30% of the sample. K-means cluster analyses grouped the sample by device barriers and attitudes. The authors assigned descriptive labels based on cluster characteristics. ANOVAs and chi-square tests assessed group differences by demographic and psychosocial variables (eg, diabetes duration, diabetes distress). RESULTS: Analyses yielded five distinct personas. The d-Embracers (54% of participants) endorsed few barriers to device use and had the highest rates of device use, lowest HbA1c, and were the least distressed. The Free Rangers (23%) had the most negative technology attitudes. The Data Minimalists (10%) used pumps but had lower CGM use and did not want more diabetes information. The Wary Wearers (11%) had lower overall device use, were younger, more distressed, endorsed many barriers, and had higher HbA1c. The High Distress (3%) group members were the youngest, had the shortest diabetes duration, reported the most barriers, and were the most distressed. CONCLUSION: These clinically meaningful personas of device readiness can inform tailored interventions targeting barriers and psychosocial needs to increase device uptake.
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: Molly L Tanenbaum; Esti Iturralde; Sarah J Hanes; Sakinah C Suttiratana; Jodie M Ambrosino; Trang T Ly; David M Maahs; Diana Naranjo; Natalie Walders-Abramson; Stuart A Weinzimer; Bruce A Buckingham; Korey K Hood Journal: J Health Psychol Date: 2017-07-12
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Richard Bergenstal; Stacie Haller; Craig Kollman; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; Elena Toschi; Howard Wolpert; David Price Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lawrence Fisher; William H Polonsky; Danielle M Hessler; Umesh Masharani; Ian Blumer; Anne L Peters; Lisa A Strycker; Vicky Bowyer Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 2.852
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: Linda A Gonder-Frederick; Karen M Schmidt; Karen A Vajda; Megan L Greear; Harsimran Singh; Jaclyn A Shepard; Daniel J Cox Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Lawrence Fisher; Danielle Hessler; Russell E Glasgow; Patricia A Arean; Umesh Masharani; Diana Naranjo; Lisa A Strycker Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 19.112
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: Ioannis Bakolis; Nicole de Zoysa; Stephanie A Amiel; Laura Potts; Kimberley Goldsmith; Peter Jacob; Emma L Smith; Linda Gonder-Frederick; Simon Heller; Elena Toschi; Augustin Brooks; Dulmini Kariyawasam; Pratik Choudhary; Marietta Stadler; Helen Rogers; Mike Kendall; Nick Sevdalis Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Elizabeth L Eby; Alison Edwards; Eric Meadows; Ilya Lipkovich; Brian D Benneyworth; Kenneth Snow Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 2.655