Sakinah C Suttiratana1, Jessie J Wong2, Monica S Lanning2, Adrienne Dunlap3, Sarah J Hanes2, Korey K Hood2,4, Rayhan A Lal2,4,5, Diana Naranjo2,4. 1. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 2. Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 3. Division of Agriculture, Food, and Environment, Tufts University, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Medford, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Stanford Diabetes Research Center (SDRC), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 5. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Gerontology, and Metabolism, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
Background: Loop is an open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) system, used by more than 9,000 people with type 1 diabetes. Understanding the pros and cons of Loop use may help improve disease management and support population level innovation. Methods: Focus groups revealed 72 new and existing users' perspectives on Loop uptake, use, and persistence. A subsample of participants from a mixed-methods, observational cohort study shared first-hand accounts of their experiences using Loop. Participants were predominately white (95%), male (50%), privately insured (94%), and reported annual household income ≥$100K (73%) and education exceeding a bachelor's degree (87%) with a mean HbA1c of 6.6% ± 0.8%. Data were analyzed and synthesized by a multidisciplinary team. Results: Participants detailed their experiences with (1) Loop technical support and troubleshooting, (2) decreased mental/behavioral burden, (3) technical issues with parts of the system, (4) glycemic control, (5) personalizing settings, and (6) providers while using Loop. Decreased burden was the most endorsed benefit defined by less worry, stress, and cognitive effort and less time spent on diabetes management tasks. Participants highlighted the benefits of Loop overnight and their introduction to "Loop communities" during use. The most discussed challenges involved technical issues. A range of provider attitudes and knowledge about Loop complicated users' clinical experiences and disclosure. Conclusions: This sample of new and experienced Loop users reported benefits to quality of life and glycemic control that outweighed challenges of setting up system components, customizing the system to suit one's lifestyle and habits, and adjusting system settings. Challenges related to system setup and calibrating settings are remediable and, if addressed, may better serve Loop users. Users reported feeling empowered by the customizability of and the educational effects facilitated by the open-source AID system. Loop helped users learn more about their chronic illness and physiology in an acceptable format. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03838900.
Background: Loop is an open-source automated insulin delivery (AID) system, used by more than 9,000 people with type 1 diabetes. Understanding the pros and cons of Loop use may help improve disease management and support population level innovation. Methods: Focus groups revealed 72 new and existing users' perspectives on Loop uptake, use, and persistence. A subsample of participants from a mixed-methods, observational cohort study shared first-hand accounts of their experiences using Loop. Participants were predominately white (95%), male (50%), privately insured (94%), and reported annual household income ≥$100K (73%) and education exceeding a bachelor's degree (87%) with a mean HbA1c of 6.6% ± 0.8%. Data were analyzed and synthesized by a multidisciplinary team. Results: Participants detailed their experiences with (1) Loop technical support and troubleshooting, (2) decreased mental/behavioral burden, (3) technical issues with parts of the system, (4) glycemic control, (5) personalizing settings, and (6) providers while using Loop. Decreased burden was the most endorsed benefit defined by less worry, stress, and cognitive effort and less time spent on diabetes management tasks. Participants highlighted the benefits of Loop overnight and their introduction to "Loop communities" during use. The most discussed challenges involved technical issues. A range of provider attitudes and knowledge about Loop complicated users' clinical experiences and disclosure. Conclusions: This sample of new and experienced Loop users reported benefits to quality of life and glycemic control that outweighed challenges of setting up system components, customizing the system to suit one's lifestyle and habits, and adjusting system settings. Challenges related to system setup and calibrating settings are remediable and, if addressed, may better serve Loop users. Users reported feeling empowered by the customizability of and the educational effects facilitated by the open-source AID system. Loop helped users learn more about their chronic illness and physiology in an acceptable format. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03838900.
Entities:
Keywords:
Closed-loop systems; Diabetes mellitus; Insulin therapy; Type 1 diabetes
Authors: Rebecca N Adams; Molly L Tanenbaum; Sarah J Hanes; Jodie M Ambrosino; Trang T Ly; David M Maahs; Diana Naranjo; Natalie Walders-Abramson; Stuart A Weinzimer; Bruce A Buckingham; Korey K Hood Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Christel Hendrieckx; Lucinda A Poole; Amin Sharifi; Dilshani Jayawardene; Margaret M Loh; Jodie C Horsburgh; Leon A Bach; Peter G Colman; Kavita Kumareswaran; Alicia J Jenkins; Richard J MacIsaac; Glenn M Ward; Benyamin Grosman; Anirban Roy; David N O'Neal; Jane Speight Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Katarina Braune; Rayhan A Lal; Lenka Petruželková; Gary Scheiner; Per Winterdijk; Signe Schmidt; Linda Raimond; Korey K Hood; Michael C Riddell; Timothy C Skinner; Klemens Raile; Sufyan Hussain Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Satish K Garg; Stuart A Weinzimer; William V Tamborlane; Bruce A Buckingham; Bruce W Bode; Timothy S Bailey; Ronald L Brazg; Jacob Ilany; Robert H Slover; Stacey M Anderson; Richard M Bergenstal; Benyamin Grosman; Anirban Roy; Toni L Cordero; John Shin; Scott W Lee; Francine R Kaufman Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: J Lawton; M Blackburn; D Rankin; J Allen; F Campbell; L Leelarathna; M Tauschmann; H Thabit; M E Wilinska; R Hovorka Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Julia Lawton; Maxine Blackburn; David Rankin; Janet M Allen; Fiona M Campbell; Lalantha Leelarathna; Martin Tauschmann; Hood Thabit; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Daniela Elleri; Roman Hovorka Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: John W Lum; Ryan J Bailey; Victoria Barnes-Lomen; Diana Naranjo; Korey K Hood; Rayhan A Lal; Brandon Arbiter; Adam S Brown; Daniel J DeSalvo; Jeremy Pettus; Peter Calhoun; Roy W Beck Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 6.118