Timm Roos1, Sabine Hochstadt2, Winfried Keuthage3, Jens Kröger4, Andreas Lueg5, Hansjörg Mühlen6, Lisa Schütte7, Nikolaus Scheper8, Dominic Ehrmann1, Norbert Hermanns1, Lutz Heinemann9, Bernhard Kulzer1. 1. Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy/Forschungsinstitut der Diabetes-Akademie Bad Mergentheim GmbH (FIDAM), Bad Mergentheim, Germany. 2. Freelancer, Berlin, Germany. 3. Specialist Practice for Diabetes and Nutritional Medicine/Schwerpunktpraxis für Diabetes und Ernährungsmedizin, Münster, Germany. 4. Center for Diabetology/Zentrum für Diabetologie Bergedorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Diabetes Center/Diabeteszentrum, L1, Hameln, Germany. 6. Diabetologicum Duisburg, Duisburg, Germany. 7. Lisabetes, Kassel, Germany. 8. Practice Dr Med. Scheper & Schneider & Veit, Marl, Germany. 9. Science Consulting in Diabetes GmbH, Neuss, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New diagnostic and therapeutic technologies are increasingly changing the treatment of people with diabetes (PWD), along with increased usage of digital tools. To date, however, there is little data to which level and how diabetologists and PWD implement digitalization. Also, not much is known about the view of diabetologists on the current status and future developments in this respect. METHOD: In an online survey, diabetologists working in clinics and practices across Germany provided responses regarding their view on digitalization and the adoption of new technologies in diabetology to 56 questions. These comments reflect the opinion of several experts about the current importance and use of specific digital/technological topics. RESULTS: Overall, 326 diabetologists took part in the survey. They reported a positive attitude (75.8%) toward new technologies and digitalization, and they see more advantages rather than disadvantages. Younger age of the diabetologists was significantly associated with a more positive attitude (r = -0.176; P < .01), and there was no gender effect (P = .738). On average, in each practice, 5.5% of PWD are using an insulin pump for therapy, 4.8% a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system, 16.9% an intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring system, and 0.3% an automated insulin delivery (AID) system. With respect to digitalization, the three most important current topics are software for glucose data analysis (average rank on a scale from one to six, with one being the most important: 2.4), compatibility with other systems (2.9), and AID systems (3.8)). CONCLUSIONS: This survey, which is going to be repeated annually, showed that the diabetologists who participated predominantly have a positive attitude toward new technologies and digital applications and were aware of the associated advantages. However, perceived disadvantages need to be addressed to enable wider adoption of new technologies and digital solutions.
BACKGROUND: New diagnostic and therapeutic technologies are increasingly changing the treatment of people with diabetes (PWD), along with increased usage of digital tools. To date, however, there is little data to which level and how diabetologists and PWD implement digitalization. Also, not much is known about the view of diabetologists on the current status and future developments in this respect. METHOD: In an online survey, diabetologists working in clinics and practices across Germany provided responses regarding their view on digitalization and the adoption of new technologies in diabetology to 56 questions. These comments reflect the opinion of several experts about the current importance and use of specific digital/technological topics. RESULTS: Overall, 326 diabetologists took part in the survey. They reported a positive attitude (75.8%) toward new technologies and digitalization, and they see more advantages rather than disadvantages. Younger age of the diabetologists was significantly associated with a more positive attitude (r = -0.176; P < .01), and there was no gender effect (P = .738). On average, in each practice, 5.5% of PWD are using an insulin pump for therapy, 4.8% a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system, 16.9% an intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring system, and 0.3% an automated insulin delivery (AID) system. With respect to digitalization, the three most important current topics are software for glucose data analysis (average rank on a scale from one to six, with one being the most important: 2.4), compatibility with other systems (2.9), and AID systems (3.8)). CONCLUSIONS: This survey, which is going to be repeated annually, showed that the diabetologists who participated predominantly have a positive attitude toward new technologies and digital applications and were aware of the associated advantages. However, perceived disadvantages need to be addressed to enable wider adoption of new technologies and digital solutions.
Authors: Regitze A S Pals; Ulla M Hansen; Clea B Johansen; Christian S Hansen; Marit E Jørgensen; Jesper Fleischer; Ingrid Willaing Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Norbert Hermanns; Dominic Ehrmann; Amit Shapira; Bernhard Kulzer; Andreas Schmitt; Lori Laffel Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 10.460