Ananta Addala1, Sakinah C Suttiratana2, Jessie J Wong1, Monica S Lanning1, Katharine D Barnard3, Jill Weissberg-Benchell4, Lori M Laffel5,6, Korey K Hood1, Diana Naranjo1. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cost is a major consideration in the uptake and continued use of diabetes technology. With increasing use of automated insulin delivery systems, it is important to understand the specific cost-related barriers to technology adoption. In this qualitative analysis, we were interested in understanding and examining the decision-making process around cost and diabetes technology use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four raters coded transcripts of four stakeholder groups using inductive coding for each stakeholder group to establish relevant themes/nodes. We applied the Social Ecological Model in the interpretation of five thematic levels of cost. RESULTS: We identified five thematic levels of cost: policy, organizational, insurance, interpersonal and individual. Equitable diabetes technology access was an important policy-level theme. The insurance-level theme had multiple subthemes which predominantly carried a negative valence. Participants also emphasized the psychosocial burden of cost specifically identifying diabetes costs to their families, the guilt of diabetes related costs, and frustration in the time and involvement required to ensure insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: We found broad consensus in how cost is experienced by stakeholder groups. Cost considerations for diabetes technology uptake extended beyond finances to include time, cost to society, morality and interpersonal relationships. Cost also reflected an important moral principle tied to the shared desire for equitable access to diabetes technology. Knowledge of these considerations can help clinicians and researchers promote equitable device uptake while anticipating barriers for all persons living with type 1 diabetes and their families.
BACKGROUND: Cost is a major consideration in the uptake and continued use of diabetes technology. With increasing use of automated insulin delivery systems, it is important to understand the specific cost-related barriers to technology adoption. In this qualitative analysis, we were interested in understanding and examining the decision-making process around cost and diabetes technology use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four raters coded transcripts of four stakeholder groups using inductive coding for each stakeholder group to establish relevant themes/nodes. We applied the Social Ecological Model in the interpretation of five thematic levels of cost. RESULTS: We identified five thematic levels of cost: policy, organizational, insurance, interpersonal and individual. Equitable diabetes technology access was an important policy-level theme. The insurance-level theme had multiple subthemes which predominantly carried a negative valence. Participants also emphasized the psychosocial burden of cost specifically identifying diabetes costs to their families, the guilt of diabetes related costs, and frustration in the time and involvement required to ensure insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: We found broad consensus in how cost is experienced by stakeholder groups. Cost considerations for diabetes technology uptake extended beyond finances to include time, cost to society, morality and interpersonal relationships. Cost also reflected an important moral principle tied to the shared desire for equitable access to diabetes technology. Knowledge of these considerations can help clinicians and researchers promote equitable device uptake while anticipating barriers for all persons living with type 1 diabetes and their families.
Authors: Sue A Brown; Boris P Kovatchev; Dan Raghinaru; John W Lum; Bruce A Buckingham; Yogish C Kudva; Lori M Laffel; Carol J Levy; Jordan E Pinsker; R Paul Wadwa; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Stacey M Anderson; Mei Mei Church; Vikash Dadlani; Laya Ekhlaspour; Gregory P Forlenza; Elvira Isganaitis; David W Lam; Craig Kollman; Roy W Beck Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven M Willi; Kellee M Miller; Linda A DiMeglio; Georgeanna J Klingensmith; Jill H Simmons; William V Tamborlane; Kristen J Nadeau; Julie M Kittelsrud; Peter Huckfeldt; Roy W Beck; Terri H Lipman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Kellee M Miller; Mark A Clements; Michael R Rickels; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane; Richard Bergenstal; Elizabeth Smith; Beth A Olson; Satish K Garg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Molly L Tanenbaum; Rebecca N Adams; Sarah J Hanes; Regan C Barley; Kellee M Miller; Shelagh A Mulvaney; Korey K Hood Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-01-10
Authors: Lawrence Fisher; Danielle Hessler; Russell E Glasgow; Patricia A Arean; Umesh Masharani; Diana Naranjo; Lisa A Strycker Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 19.112