BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to assess patient perspectives and satisfaction with the MiniMed 670G insulin pump. Those participants who used the pump as part of a hybrid closed loop were also asked to provide their views on the automatic feature (auto mode). METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus using the Medtronic™ 670G pump were asked about their experience with the device using a semi-structured survey developed by the research team. Responses were quantified to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Seventeen participants used the pump as part of a hybrid closed loop system, while four participants used the pump in combination with a nonintegrated continuous glucose monitoring system. Overall, participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the pump (14/21) mostly because of improvements in blood glucose (BG) control (15/21). Least liked features were physical design and structure (6/21), frequency of user input (5/21), alert frequency (4/21), and difficulty of use (3/21). Those using the hybrid closed loop were satisfied with the auto mode feature (11/17), mostly because of improvements in BG control (9/17). The least liked features of the auto mode technology were that blood glucose levels remained elevated (5/17) and the frequency of alerts (4/17). CONCLUSION: Participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the pump and its auto mode featured mostly because of improvements in BG control. They also pointed out some key aspects of the device that are of potential clinical or commercial relevance. Additional research is needed to further evaluate users' perspectives on this new device.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to assess patient perspectives and satisfaction with the MiniMed 670G insulin pump. Those participants who used the pump as part of a hybrid closed loop were also asked to provide their views on the automatic feature (auto mode). METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus using the Medtronic™ 670G pump were asked about their experience with the device using a semi-structured survey developed by the research team. Responses were quantified to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Seventeen participants used the pump as part of a hybrid closed loop system, while four participants used the pump in combination with a nonintegrated continuous glucose monitoring system. Overall, participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the pump (14/21) mostly because of improvements in blood glucose (BG) control (15/21). Least liked features were physical design and structure (6/21), frequency of user input (5/21), alert frequency (4/21), and difficulty of use (3/21). Those using the hybrid closed loop were satisfied with the auto mode feature (11/17), mostly because of improvements in BG control (9/17). The least liked features of the auto mode technology were that blood glucose levels remained elevated (5/17) and the frequency of alerts (4/17). CONCLUSION:Participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the pump and its auto mode featured mostly because of improvements in BG control. They also pointed out some key aspects of the device that are of potential clinical or commercial relevance. Additional research is needed to further evaluate users' perspectives on this new device.
Entities:
Keywords:
insulin pump; self-management; survey; type 1 diabetes
Authors: J Hermanides; K Nørgaard; D Bruttomesso; C Mathieu; A Frid; C M Dayan; P Diem; C Fermon; I M E Wentholt; J B L Hoekstra; J H DeVries Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Zoe A Stewart; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Sara Hartnell; Rosemary C Temple; Gerry Rayman; Katharine P Stanley; David Simmons; Graham R Law; Eleanor M Scott; Roman Hovorka; Helen R Murphy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Boris P Kovatchev; Eric Renard; Claudio Cobelli; Howard C Zisser; Patrick Keith-Hynes; Stacey M Anderson; Sue A Brown; Daniel R Chernavvsky; Marc D Breton; Lloyd B Mize; Anne Farret; Jérôme Place; Daniela Bruttomesso; Simone Del Favero; Federico Boscari; Silvia Galasso; Angelo Avogaro; Lalo Magni; Federico Di Palma; Chiara Toffanin; Mirko Messori; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Satish K Garg; Stuart A Weinzimer; William V Tamborlane; Bruce A Buckingham; Bruce W Bode; Timothy S Bailey; Ronald L Brazg; Jacob Ilany; Robert H Slover; Stacey M Anderson; Richard M Bergenstal; Benyamin Grosman; Anirban Roy; Toni L Cordero; John Shin; Scott W Lee; Francine R Kaufman Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Cari Berget; Laurel H Messer; Tim Vigers; Brigitte I Frohnert; Laura Pyle; R Paul Wadwa; Kimberly A Driscoll; Gregory P Forlenza Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Susan Kohl Malone; Amy J Peleckis; Laura Grunin; Gary Yu; Sooyong Jang; James Weimer; Insup Lee; Michael R Rickels; Namni Goel Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 4.011