OBJECTIVES: Diabetes technology provides people with diabetes with new opportunities, but the transformations allowed by new technology do not necessarily provide improvements in clinical metrics applied in diabetes care. This study seeks to understand how everyday life impacts on the way people use diabetes technology and how this influences diabetes care. METHODS: Individual semi-structured qualitative interviews with 21 adults with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pumps were recruited from two Danish diabetes outpatient clinics. Data were analyzed abductively and interpreted according to predetermined and emergent perspectives. RESULTS: Transformations in care practices derived from new technological therapies were generally well-supported by healthcare providers, but adaptation to everyday life was often challenging. More advanced technology enabled people to better control diabetes, but the control they sought was defined by individual life experiences/factors. Work involved in controlling blood glucose could cause a sense of feeling controlled by diabetes in everyday life. DISCUSSION: Everyday life with diabetes is often characterized by uncertainty and individual coping strategies are imbued with values that extend beyond purely clinical concerns and reflect the sociality of everyday life. The social values influencing individual decision-making regarding diabetes technology could be effectively expanded and enhanced with integrated peer-supported learning.
OBJECTIVES: Diabetes technology provides people with diabetes with new opportunities, but the transformations allowed by new technology do not necessarily provide improvements in clinical metrics applied in diabetes care. This study seeks to understand how everyday life impacts on the way people use diabetes technology and how this influences diabetes care. METHODS: Individual semi-structured qualitative interviews with 21 adults with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pumps were recruited from two Danish diabetes outpatient clinics. Data were analyzed abductively and interpreted according to predetermined and emergent perspectives. RESULTS: Transformations in care practices derived from new technological therapies were generally well-supported by healthcare providers, but adaptation to everyday life was often challenging. More advanced technology enabled people to better control diabetes, but the control they sought was defined by individual life experiences/factors. Work involved in controlling blood glucose could cause a sense of feeling controlled by diabetes in everyday life. DISCUSSION: Everyday life with diabetes is often characterized by uncertainty and individual coping strategies are imbued with values that extend beyond purely clinical concerns and reflect the sociality of everyday life. The social values influencing individual decision-making regarding diabetes technology could be effectively expanded and enhanced with integrated peer-supported learning.