OBJECTIVE: Daily self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is essential for type 1 diabetes management yet is challenging during adolescence. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is the repeated sampling of behaviors and experiences in real time in the natural environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 1) the validity of self-reported SMBG values via text message-delivered EMA surveys compared with objective SMBG values via glucose meters and 2) in-the-moment motivators and barriers to performing SMBG in a pediatric type 1 diabetes population. METHODS: Youth (n = 62, aged 11-21 years) with type 1 diabetes received three text messages daily for 10 days containing surveys inquiring about SMBG engagement. Objective SMBG values were downloaded from glucose meters. RESULTS: On average, participants reported performing SMBG 4 times/day. Of the self-reported SMBG values, 39.6% were accurate. Inaccurate values included additions (i.e., self-reported value with no objective value), omissions (i.e., objective value with no self-reported value), and alterations (difference between self-report and objective SMBG values ≥10 mg/dL). Of the matched pairs of self-reported and objective SMBG values, 41.3% were altered. Bland-Altman plots determined that the mean difference between self-reported and objective glucose data were -5.43 mg/dL. Participants reported being motivated to check their blood glucose because it was important for their health, and reported barriers included wanting to ignore the task, forgetting, and not having devices. CONCLUSION: Youth's self-reported SMBG values may not align with objective readings. The results of this study can facilitate future research to determine individual factors related to SMBG and accuracy of self-reporting.
OBJECTIVE: Daily self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is essential for type 1 diabetes management yet is challenging during adolescence. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is the repeated sampling of behaviors and experiences in real time in the natural environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 1) the validity of self-reported SMBG values via text message-delivered EMA surveys compared with objective SMBG values via glucose meters and 2) in-the-moment motivators and barriers to performing SMBG in a pediatric type 1 diabetes population. METHODS: Youth (n = 62, aged 11-21 years) with type 1 diabetes received three text messages daily for 10 days containing surveys inquiring about SMBG engagement. Objective SMBG values were downloaded from glucose meters. RESULTS: On average, participants reported performing SMBG 4 times/day. Of the self-reported SMBG values, 39.6% were accurate. Inaccurate values included additions (i.e., self-reported value with no objective value), omissions (i.e., objective value with no self-reported value), and alterations (difference between self-report and objective SMBG values ≥10 mg/dL). Of the matched pairs of self-reported and objective SMBG values, 41.3% were altered. Bland-Altman plots determined that the mean difference between self-reported and objective glucose data were -5.43 mg/dL. Participants reported being motivated to check their blood glucose because it was important for their health, and reported barriers included wanting to ignore the task, forgetting, and not having devices. CONCLUSION: Youth's self-reported SMBG values may not align with objective readings. The results of this study can facilitate future research to determine individual factors related to SMBG and accuracy of self-reporting.
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: Shelagh A Mulvaney; Russell L Rothman; Mary S Dietrich; Kenneth A Wallston; Elena Grove; Tom A Elasy; Kevin B Johnson Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Arleta Rewers; H Peter Chase; Todd Mackenzie; Philip Walravens; Mark Roback; Marian Rewers; Richard F Hamman; Georgeanna Klingensmith Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jane L Chiang; David M Maahs; Katharine C Garvey; Korey K Hood; Lori M Laffel; Stuart A Weinzimer; Joseph I Wolfsdorf; Desmond Schatz Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 19.112