Jessie Wong1, Regan Barley2, Sarah Hanes3, Molly Tanenbaum4, Monica Skylar Lanning5, Diana Naranjo6, Korey Hood7. 1. Stanford University, 6429, 780 Welch Road, Stanford, California, United States, 94305-6104; wongjj@stanford.edu. 2. Stanford University, 6429, Pediatrics, Stanford, California, United States; rcBarley@stanford.edu. 3. Stanford University, 6429, Stanford, California, United States; sjhanes@stanford.edu. 4. Stanford University, Department of Pediatrics, 780 Welch Rd, Palo Alto, United States, 94304; mollyt@stanford.edu. 5. Stanford University, 6429, Pediatrics, Stanford, California, United States; lanning@stanford.edu. 6. Stanford University School of Medicine, 10624, Department of Pediatrics, 780 Welch Road, Palo Alto, California, United States, 94143; dnaranjo@stanford.edu. 7. Stanford University School of Medicine, Pediatrics, Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Stanford, California, United States; kkhood@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the demonstrated benefits of diabetes device use, uptake of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) remains quite low. The current study aimed to identify profiles of parents of youth with type 1 diabetes based on their attitudes toward diabetes-specific technology and barriers to diabetes technology uptake. METHODS: Online survey data were collected from 471 parents in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network (child's age=12.0±3.2 years; diabetes duration=7.0±2.9 years; A1c=8.4%±1.3; 75% using insulin pump; 27% using CGM). RESULTS: K-means cluster analyses revealed 5 parent profiles: Embracers (50.7%), Burdened (15.7%), Hopeful but Hassled (14.2%), Distrusting (12.7%), and Data Minimalists (6.6%). ANOVAs and Chi-square tests identified differences between groups based on diabetes distress, worry over hypoglycemia, device use, and demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Providers encouraging device uptake may benefit from tailoring their approaches based on these distinct groups and their corresponding concerns and needs.
BACKGROUND: Despite the demonstrated benefits of diabetes device use, uptake of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) remains quite low. The current study aimed to identify profiles of parents of youth with type 1 diabetes based on their attitudes toward diabetes-specific technology and barriers to diabetes technology uptake. METHODS: Online survey data were collected from 471 parents in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network (child's age=12.0±3.2 years; diabetes duration=7.0±2.9 years; A1c=8.4%±1.3; 75% using insulin pump; 27% using CGM). RESULTS: K-means cluster analyses revealed 5 parent profiles: Embracers (50.7%), Burdened (15.7%), Hopeful but Hassled (14.2%), Distrusting (12.7%), and Data Minimalists (6.6%). ANOVAs and Chi-square tests identified differences between groups based on diabetes distress, worry over hypoglycemia, device use, and demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Providers encouraging device uptake may benefit from tailoring their approaches based on these distinct groups and their corresponding concerns and needs.