Ettya R Fremont1, Victoria A Miller1,2. 1. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 2. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become increasingly popular among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Used with CGM, remote monitoring (RM) gives caregivers real-time access to patients' glucose values. Whereas RM may safeguard against hypo- and hyperglycemic events, little is known about how older children and adolescents, who are striving for independence, and their parents view the RM aspect of CGM. The goal of this study was to describe and explore parent and youth perceptions of RM. METHODS: Youth with T1D and their parents participated separately in semi-structured interviews 2 months after starting CGM. Questions focused on decisions to use and experiences with RM. RESULTS: Analysis of 43 parents and 41 youth (13.79 years ± 2.82) interviews revealed four themes, with 10 subthemes. Seven subthemes emerged in parent and youth interviews, and three emerged exclusively in parent interviews. The overarching themes included the impact of RM on (1) peace-of-mind, (2) parental anxiety, (3) communication; and addressed (4) technological limitations that prevented some from using RM. Regardless of youth age, youth and parents found comfort in parental knowledge of glucose values and parental abilities to assist youth (e.g., giving reminders to eat). Whereas RM could lead to conflicts due to excessive communication (e.g., texting), conflicts could be resolved through iterative parent-youth conversations. CONCLUSION: RM may facilitate youth independence by providing a way for them to stay connected to their support system while acquiring developmentally appropriate skills. However, families should have iterative discussions about boundaries to mitigate parental over-involvement.
OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become increasingly popular among youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Used with CGM, remote monitoring (RM) gives caregivers real-time access to patients' glucose values. Whereas RM may safeguard against hypo- and hyperglycemic events, little is known about how older children and adolescents, who are striving for independence, and their parents view the RM aspect of CGM. The goal of this study was to describe and explore parent and youth perceptions of RM. METHODS: Youth with T1D and their parents participated separately in semi-structured interviews 2 months after starting CGM. Questions focused on decisions to use and experiences with RM. RESULTS: Analysis of 43 parents and 41 youth (13.79 years ± 2.82) interviews revealed four themes, with 10 subthemes. Seven subthemes emerged in parent and youth interviews, and three emerged exclusively in parent interviews. The overarching themes included the impact of RM on (1) peace-of-mind, (2) parental anxiety, (3) communication; and addressed (4) technological limitations that prevented some from using RM. Regardless of youth age, youth and parents found comfort in parental knowledge of glucose values and parental abilities to assist youth (e.g., giving reminders to eat). Whereas RM could lead to conflicts due to excessive communication (e.g., texting), conflicts could be resolved through iterative parent-youth conversations. CONCLUSION: RM may facilitate youth independence by providing a way for them to stay connected to their support system while acquiring developmentally appropriate skills. However, families should have iterative discussions about boundaries to mitigate parental over-involvement.
Authors: Deborah J Wiebe; Cynthia A Berg; Carolyn Korbel; Debra L Palmer; Ryan M Beveridge; Renn Upchurch; Rob Lindsay; Michael T Swinyard; David L Donaldson Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2005-03
Authors: M-A Burckhardt; L Fried; K Bebbington; M Hancock; J A Nicholas; A Roberts; M B Abraham; E A Davis; T W Jones Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Daniel J DeSalvo; Patrick Keith-Hynes; Thomas Peyser; Jérôme Place; Kim Caswell; Darrell M Wilson; Breanne Harris; Paula Clinton; Boris Kovatchev; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Marie-Anne Burckhardt; Alison Roberts; Grant J Smith; Mary B Abraham; Elizabeth A Davis; Timothy W Jones Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 19.112