The goal of this study was to characterize trajectories of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in youth 5–12 weeks after starting CGM and examine what factors differentiate between the trajectory groups. Parent–youth dyads completed assessments before starting CGM. Days of CGM use between weeks 5 and 12 were accessed through cloud-based data repository. Three patterns of use were observed among 96 youth (mean age 13.4 ± 2.75 years; 75% white): sustained high, declining, and sustained low. Youth in the sustained low and declining groups were more likely than those in the sustained high group to use a receiver (versus smart phone). There were no differences between the trajectory groups with respect to age, race, ethnicity, income, or insulin regimen. Future research should examine trajectory groups for a longer follow-up period and identify baseline factors that reliably predict which youth will have low or declining CGM use over time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group: Factors predictive of use and of benefit from continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2009; 32:1947–1953.
2.
PhillipM, DanneT, ShalitinS, et al.: Use of continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes, 2012; 13:215–228.
3.
Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group: Continuous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr, 2007; 151:388–393.
4.
WeinzimerS, XingD, TanseyM, et al.: FreeStyle Navigator Continuous Glucose Monitoring System use in children with type 1 diabetes using glargine-based multiple daily dose regimens. Diabetes Care, 2008; 31:525–527.
5.
WongJC, FosterNC, MaahsDM, et al.: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring among participants in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37:2702–2709.
6.
BergenstalRM, TamborlaneWV, AhmannA, et al.: Sensor-augmented pump therapy for A1C reduction (STAR 3) study: results from the 6-month continuation phase. Diabetes Care, 2011; 34:2403–2405.
7.
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group: Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in a clinical care environment. Diabetes Care, 2010; 33:17–22.
8.
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group: Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2008; 359:1464–1476.
9.
BergenstalRM, TamborlaneWV, AhmannA, et al.: Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2010; 363:311–320.
10.
Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group: Psychological aspects of continuous glucose monitoring in pediatric type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes, 2006; 7:32–38.
11.
TanseyM, LaffelL, ChengJ, et al.: Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring in adults and youth with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med, 2011; 28:1118–1122.
12.
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group: Validation of measures of satisfaction with and impact of continuous and conventional glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2010; 12:679–684.
13.
Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group: Prolonged use of continuous glucose monitors in children with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or intensive multiple-daily injection therapy. Pediatr Diabetes, 2009; 10:91–96.
14.
RasbachLE, VolkeningLK, MarkowitzJT, et al.: Youth and parent measures of self-efficacy for continuous glucose monitoring: survey psychometric properties. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2015; 17:327–334.
15.
MillerVA, XiaoR, SlickN, et al.: Youth involvement in the decision to start continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) predicts subsequent CGM use. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43:2355–2361.
16.
GianiE, SnelgroveR, VolkeningLK, LaffelLM: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) adherence in youth with type 1 diabetes: associations with biomedical and psychosocial variables. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2017; 11:476–483.
17.
FarfelA, LibermanA, Yackobovitch-GavanM, et al.: Executive functions and adherence to continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:265–270.
18.
HilliardME, GuilfoyleSM, DolanLM, HoodKK: Prediction of adolescents' glycemic control 1 year after diabetes-specific family conflict: the mediating role of blood glucose monitoring adherence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2011; 165:624–629.
19.
WilliS, MillerKM, DiMeglioLA, et al.: Racial-ethnic disparities in management and outcomes among children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatrics, 2015; 135:424–434.
20.
DrotarD, IttenbachRF, RohanJM, et al.: Diabetes management and glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes: test of a predictive model. J Behav Med, 2013; 36:234–245.
21.
HoodKK, ButlerDA, AndersonBJ, LaffelLMB: Updated and revised diabetes family conflict scale. Diabetes Care, 2007; 30:1764–1769.
22.
JonesB, NaginDS, RoederK: A SAS procedure based on mixture models for estimating developmental trajectories. Sociol Res Methods, 2001; 29:374–393.
23.
MaurasN, BeckR, XingD, et al.: A randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes in young children aged 4 to <10 years. Diabetes Care, 2012; 35:204–210.
24.
HilliardME, LevyW, AndersonBJ, et al.: Benefits and barriers of continuous glucose monitoring in young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:493–498.
25.
FosterNC, BeckRW, MillerKM, et al.: State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:66–72.
26.
TanseyM, WeinzimerS, BeckR, et al.: Extended 6-month follow-up of a randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes in young children aged 4 to <10 years. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:e63–e63.
