Courtney Robertson1, Ashleigh Lin2, Grant Smith2, Anna Yeung3,4, Penelope Strauss2, Jennifer Nicholas1,2,5, Elizabeth Davis1,2,5, Tim Jones1,2,5, Lisa Gibson2, Juliet Richters4, Martin de Bock1,2,5,6. 1. Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Australia. 2. Telethon Kids Institute, Nedlands, Australia. 3. Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 4. Australian Study of Health and Relationships, Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity in Society, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 5. School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia. 6. University of Otago and Canterbury District Health Board, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore the impact of externally worn diabetes technologies on sexual behavior and activity, body image, and anxiety in adopters and nonadopters of these devices. METHODS: People with type 1 diabetes aged 16-60 years living in Western Australia were invited to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Of the 289 respondents (mean age 34.3 years), 45% used continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and 35% used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Approximately half of CSII users stated that the pump interferes with sex. Of these, 75% disconnect their pump during sexual activity to avoid this issue. Comfort during sex influenced the location of the CSII insertion site in 22% of respondents, with the abdomen being preferred. One in four non-CSII users cited sex-related concerns as a factor for not adopting the technology. CGM interfered with sexual activity in 20% of users, but did not commonly affect CGM placement (only 18%). Sexual activity was reported as a factor for not adopting the technology in 10% of non-CGM users. No differences in body dissatisfaction (P = .514) or anxiety (P = .304) between CSII and non-CSII users were observed. No differences in sexual activity and behavior between technology users and nontechnology users were observed. CONCLUSION: Wearable technologies impact upon sexual activity and this influences the decision to adopt the technology. Despite this, technology users are similar in terms of sexual behavior, anxiety, and body image compared to nontechnology users. Where appropriate, these data can be used to identify potential concerns, address strategies to mitigate them, and inform people with diabetes when considering adopting external technologies.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore the impact of externally worn diabetes technologies on sexual behavior and activity, body image, and anxiety in adopters and nonadopters of these devices. METHODS:People with type 1 diabetes aged 16-60 years living in Western Australia were invited to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Of the 289 respondents (mean age 34.3 years), 45% used continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and 35% used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Approximately half of CSII users stated that the pump interferes with sex. Of these, 75% disconnect their pump during sexual activity to avoid this issue. Comfort during sex influenced the location of the CSII insertion site in 22% of respondents, with the abdomen being preferred. One in four non-CSII users cited sex-related concerns as a factor for not adopting the technology. CGM interfered with sexual activity in 20% of users, but did not commonly affect CGM placement (only 18%). Sexual activity was reported as a factor for not adopting the technology in 10% of non-CGM users. No differences in body dissatisfaction (P = .514) or anxiety (P = .304) between CSII and non-CSII users were observed. No differences in sexual activity and behavior between technology users and nontechnology users were observed. CONCLUSION: Wearable technologies impact upon sexual activity and this influences the decision to adopt the technology. Despite this, technology users are similar in terms of sexual behavior, anxiety, and body image compared to nontechnology users. Where appropriate, these data can be used to identify potential concerns, address strategies to mitigate them, and inform people with diabetes when considering adopting external technologies.
Authors: Juliet Richters; Paul B Badcock; Judy M Simpson; David Shellard; Chris Rissel; Richard O de Visser; Andrew E Grulich; Anthony M A Smith Journal: Sex Health Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: Marilyn D Ritholz; Arlene Smaldone; Jarim Lee; Astrid Castillo; Howard Wolpert; Katie Weinger Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sabine Seereiner; Kurt Neeser; Christian Weber; Karsten Schreiber; Wolfgang Habacher; Ivo Rakovac; Peter Beck; Louise Schmidt; Thomas R Pieber Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Diann M Ackard; Nicole Vik; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer; Kathryn H Schmitz; Peter Hannan; David R Jacobs Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2008-05-07 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: M Rachmiel; Z Landau; M Boaz; K Mazor Aronovitch; N Loewenthal; M Ben-Ami; Y Levy-Shraga; D Modan-Moses; A Haim; S Abiri; O Pinhas-Hamiel Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Molly L Tanenbaum; Sarah J Hanes; Kellee M Miller; Diana Naranjo; Rachel Bensen; Korey K Hood Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Roza Hoorsan; Minoor Lamyian; Fazlollah Ahmadi; Seyed Ali Azin; Abbas Rahimiforoushani Journal: Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery Date: 2022-07