Laurel H Messer1, Paul F Cook2, Molly L Tanenbaum3, Sarah Hanes3, Kimberly A Driscoll1, Korey K Hood3. 1. University of Colorado Anschutz, Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, Aurora, CO, USA. 2. University of Colorado Anschutz, College of Nursing, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are underutilized by individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), particularly during the adolescent years. Little is known about perceptions of CGM benefit and burdens, and few tools exist to quantify this information. METHODS: Two questionnaires were developed and validated-Benefit of CGM (BenCGM) and Burdens of CGM (BurCGM)-in a sample of adolescents ages 12-19 years involved in the T1D Exchange Registry. We chose to start the validation process with adolescents given their low CGM uptake and high risk for suboptimal glycemic outcomes. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to confirm factor structure and select items. The resultant scales were tested for internal reliability and convergent/divergent validity with critical diabetes and quality of life outcomes: age, depression, diabetes distress, self-efficacy, technology attitudes, and diabetes technology attitudes. RESULTS: A total of 431 adolescents with T1D completed the questionnaires (51% female, mean age 16.3 ± 2.26, 83% white non-Hispanic, 70% having used CGM). Two single factor scales emerged, and scales were reduced to 8 items each. Those who perceived higher benefit of CGM exhibited lower diabetes distress, higher self-efficacy, and more positive attitudes toward technology. Those who perceived higher burden of CGM exhibited higher diabetes distress, lower self-efficacy, and less positive technology attitudes. CONCLUSION: The BenCGM and BurCGM questionnaires each comprise 8-items that demonstrate robust psychometric properties for use in adolescents with T1D, and can be used to develop targeted interventions to increase CGM wear to improve diabetes management.
BACKGROUND:Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are underutilized by individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), particularly during the adolescent years. Little is known about perceptions of CGM benefit and burdens, and few tools exist to quantify this information. METHODS: Two questionnaires were developed and validated-Benefit of CGM (BenCGM) and Burdens of CGM (BurCGM)-in a sample of adolescents ages 12-19 years involved in the T1D Exchange Registry. We chose to start the validation process with adolescents given their low CGM uptake and high risk for suboptimal glycemic outcomes. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to confirm factor structure and select items. The resultant scales were tested for internal reliability and convergent/divergent validity with critical diabetes and quality of life outcomes: age, depression, diabetes distress, self-efficacy, technology attitudes, and diabetes technology attitudes. RESULTS: A total of 431 adolescents with T1D completed the questionnaires (51% female, mean age 16.3 ± 2.26, 83% white non-Hispanic, 70% having used CGM). Two single factor scales emerged, and scales were reduced to 8 items each. Those who perceived higher benefit of CGM exhibited lower diabetes distress, higher self-efficacy, and more positive attitudes toward technology. Those who perceived higher burden of CGM exhibited higher diabetes distress, lower self-efficacy, and less positive technology attitudes. CONCLUSION: The BenCGM and BurCGM questionnaires each comprise 8-items that demonstrate robust psychometric properties for use in adolescents with T1D, and can be used to develop targeted interventions to increase CGM wear to improve diabetes management.
Entities:
Keywords:
adolescents; continuous glucose monitoring; technology; type 1 diabetes
Authors: Irl B Hirsch; Dana Armstrong; Richard M Bergenstal; Bruce Buckingham; Belinda P Childs; William L Clarke; Anne Peters; Howard Wolpert Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
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: Karianne Fjeld Løvaas; John G Cooper; Sverre Sandberg; Thomas Røraas; Geir Thue Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 2.655
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: Priya Prahalad; Dessi P Zaharieva; Ananta Addala; Christin New; David Scheinker; Manisha Desai; Korey K Hood; David M Maahs Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Korey K Hood; Lori M Laffel; Thomas Danne; Revital Nimri; Stuart A Weinzimer; Judy Sibayan; Ryan J Bailey; Desmond Schatz; Natasa Bratina; Rachel Bello; Alina Punel; Peter Calhoun; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Moshe Phillip Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 6.118