Literature DB >> 31335192

Improvement in Psychosocial Outcomes in Children with Type 1 Diabetes and Their Parents Following Subsidy for Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Marie-Anne Burckhardt1,2,3, Mary B Abraham1,2,3, Jennifer Mountain2, Daina Coenen2, Jaimee Paniora2, Helen Clapin2, Timothy W Jones1,2,3, Elizabeth A Davis1,2,3.   

Abstract

Background: In April 2017, the Australian Government announced the full subsidy of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) to children and young people <21 years with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of CGM on psychosocial outcomes in a T1D pediatric population-based sample.
Methods: Children with T1D, commencing CGM between June 2017 and January 2018, and their parents were recruited in a prospective cohort study in a tertiary pediatric hospital in Western Australia. Parents and children older than 12 years self-completed questionnaires at onset of CGM and 2 months later, on fear of hypoglycemia (FOH) and diabetes treatment satisfaction (DTS). Parents provided measures of sleep quality. Children completed the Gold hypoglycemia awareness score. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values were compared at baseline (BL) and follow-up (FU).
Results: Sixty parents and 38 children provided measures at BL and FU. Parental total FOH decreased (mean score BL vs. FU; 50.0 vs. 44.3, P = 0.004) with reduction in the Worry subscore (28.2 vs. 24.2, P = 0.004). Furthermore, parental and child DTS increased. Parental sleep quality improved (P < 0.001) and overnight finger prick testing decreased (P < 0.001). Impaired hypoglycemic awareness decreased in children (26.3% vs. 10.5%, P = 0.031). HbA1c reduced from 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) to 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) (P = 0.036). Conclusions: Introduction of subsidized CGM showed early improvement in psychosocial and glycemic outcomes in patients and their families in Western Australia. Ongoing evaluation is essential to assess whether equitable access to CGM will translate to sustained benefits for Australian T1D pediatric patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continuous glucose monitoring; Government subsidy; Psychosocial outcomes; Type 1 diabetes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31335192     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  9 in total

1.  Impact of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with alarms on sleep and metabolic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Roberto Franceschi; Chiara Scotton; Letizia Leonardi; Vittoria Cauvin; Evelina Maines; Marco Angriman; Riccardo Pertile; Francesca Valent; Massimo Soffiati; Ugo Faraguna
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 4.280

2.  'Much more convenient, just as effective': Experiences of starting continuous glucose monitoring remotely following Type 1 diabetes diagnosis.

Authors:  Molly L Tanenbaum; Dessi P Zaharieva; Ananta Addala; Priya Prahalad; Julie A Hooper; Brianna Leverenz; Ana L Cortes; Nora Arrizon-Ruiz; Erica Pang; Franziska Bishop; David M Maahs
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 4.213

3.  'I was ready for it at the beginning': Parent experiences with early introduction of continuous glucose monitoring following their child's Type 1 diabetes diagnosis.

Authors:  Molly L Tanenbaum; Dessi P Zaharieva; Ananta Addala; Jessica Ngo; Priya Prahalad; Brianna Leverenz; Christin New; David M Maahs; Korey K Hood
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 4.359

Review 4.  Advances, Challenges, and Cost Associated with Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Adolescents and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

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

5.  Universal Subsidized Continuous Glucose Monitoring Funding for Young People With Type 1 Diabetes: Uptake and Outcomes Over 2 Years, a Population-Based Study.

Authors:  Stephanie R Johnson; Deborah J Holmes-Walker; Melissa Chee; Arul Earnest; Timothy W Jones; Maria Craig; Kym Anderson; Geoff Ambler; Helen Barrett; Jenny Batch; Philip Bergman; Fergus Cameron; Peter Colman; Louise Conwell; Chris Cooper; Jennifer Couper; Elizabeth Davis; Martin de Bock; Kim Donaghue; Jan Fairchild; Gerry Fegan; Spiros Fourlanos; Sarah Glastras; Leonie Gray; Shane Hamblin; Paul Hofman; Dianne Jane Holmes-Walker; Neville Howard; Michelle Jack; Steven James; Craig Jefferies; Stephanie Johnson; Jeff Kao; Bruce R King; Antony Lafferty; Michelle Martin; Robert McCrossin; Mark Pascoe; Ryan Paul; Dorota Pawlak; Alexia Peña; Sarah Price; Darrell Price; Christine Rodda; David Simmons; Richard Sinnott; Alan Sive; Carmel Smart; Monique Stone; Steve Stranks; Elaine Tham; Charles Verge; Glenn Ward; Ben Wheeler; Judy Williams; Helen Woodhead; Nick Woolfield; Anthony Zimmermann
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  Technological Ecological Momentary Assessment Tools to Study Type 1 Diabetes in Youth: Viewpoint of Methodologies.

Authors:  Mary Katherine Ray; Alana McMichael; Maria Rivera-Santana; Jacob Noel; Tamara Hershey
Journal:  JMIR Diabetes       Date:  2021-06-03

Review 7.  Monitoring of Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Brynn E Marks; Joseph I Wolfsdorf
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 5.555

8.  Practical aspects of diabetes technology use: Continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and automated insulin delivery systems.

Authors:  Brynn E Marks; Kristen M Williams; Jordan S Sherwood; Melissa S Putman
Journal:  J Clin Transl Endocrinol       Date:  2021-12-04

9.  Fear of hypoglycemia and quality of life in young people with type 1 diabetes and their parents in the era of sensor glucose monitoring.

Authors:  Vivien Glocker; Sara Bachmann; Melanie Hess; Gabor Szinnai; Marie-Anne Burckhardt
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 6.055

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.