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.
FosterNCBeckRWMillerKM, et al.
State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther2019;
21: 66–72.
2.
KargesBSchwandtAHeidtmannB, et al.
Association of insulin pump therapy vs insulin injection therapy with severe hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, and glycemic control among children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes. J Am Med Assoc2017;
318: 1358–1366.
3.
BenkhadraKAlahdabFTamhaneS, et al.
Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)2017;
86: 354–360.
4.
PickupJCSuttonAJ.Severe hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes: meta-analysis of multiple daily insulin injections compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabet Med2008;
25: 765–774.
5.
MissoMLEgbertsKJPageM, et al.
Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple insulin injections for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2010 (1): CD005103.
6.
LawtonJRankinDCookeD, et al.
Patients' experiences of adjusting insulin doses when implementing flexible intensive insulin therapy: a longitudinal, qualitative investigation. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2012;
98: 236–242.
7.
MillerKMFosterNCBeckRW, et al.
Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care2015;
38: 971–978.
8.
ShalitinSGilMNimriR, et al.
Predictors of glycaemic control in patients with Type 1 diabetes commencing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. Diabet Med2010;
27: 339–347.
9.
JoubertMMoreraJVicenteA, et al.
Cross-sectional survey and retrospective analysis of a large cohort of adults with type 1 diabetes with long-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion treatment. J Diabetes Sci Technol2014;
8: 1005–1010.
10.
LawtonJKirkhamJRankinD, et al.
Who gains clinical benefit from using insulin pump therapy? A qualitative study of the perceptions and views of health professionals involved in the Relative Effectiveness of Pumps over MDI and Structured Education (REPOSE) trial. Diabet Med2016;
33: 243–251.
11.
RodriguesIAReidHAIsmailK, et al.
Indications and efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a clinical audit in a specialist service. Diabet Med2005;
22: 842–849.
12.
HayesMFrearsonSKellerC, et al.
A hermeneutic phenomenological study of why adults with type 1 diabetes choose to discontinue CSII. Eur Diabetes Nurs2011;
8: 12–16.
13.
WongJCBoyleCDiMeglioLA, et al.
Evaluation of pump discontinuation and associated factors in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. J Diabetes Sci Technol2017;
11: 224–232.
14.
NaranjoDTanenbaumMLIturraldeE, et al.
Diabetes technology: uptake, outcomes, barriers, and the intersection with distress. J Diabetes Sci Technol2016;
10: 852–858.
15.
TanenbaumMLHanesSJMillerKM, et al.
Diabetes device use in adults with type 1 diabetes: barriers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care2017;
40: 181–187.
16.
PolonskyWHHesslerD.What are the quality of life-related benefits and losses associated with real-time continuous glucose monitoring? A survey of current users. Diabetes Technol Ther2013;
15: 295–301.
17.
BarnardKDOliverN.Technological advancement in the treatment of diabetes-ignoring psychosocial impact at our peril. Diabetes Technol Ther2015;
17: 149–151.
18.
RubinRRPeyrotM.Patient-reported outcomes and diabetes technology: a systematic review of the literature. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev2010;
7: 405–412.
19.
PolonskyWHFisherLHesslerD, et al.
Development of a new measure for assessing insulin delivery device satisfaction in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther2015;
17: 773–779.
20.
SchmidtSAndersen NexoMNorgaardO, et al.
Psychosocial factors associated with HbA1c in adults with insulin pump-treated type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med2020;
37: 1454–1462.
21.
PopeCMaysN.Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. Br Med J1995;
311: 42–45.
22.
CharonR.The patient-physician relationship. Narrative medicine: a model for empathy, reflection, profession, and trust. J Am Med Assoc2001;
286: 1897–1902.
23.
TimmermansSTavoryI.Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociol Theory2012;
30: 167–186.
24.
MolA.Living with diabetes: care beyond choice and control. Lancet2009;
373: 1756–1757.
25.
GarmoAHornstenALeksellJ.The pump was a saviour for me.' Patients' experiences of insulin pump therapy. Diabet Med2013;
30: 717–723.
26.
DouglasMW.Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers.
Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983.
27.
FeudtnerC.Bittersweet: diabetes, insulin and the transformation of illness.
Chapel Hill:
The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
28.
FranklinV.Influences on technology use and efficacy in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol2016;
10: 647–655.
29.
HansenUMClealBWillaingI, et al.
Managing type 1 diabetes in the context of work life: a matter of containment. Soc Sci Med2018;
219: 70–77.
30.
GroseDNO'BrienCLCastleDJ.Type 1 diabetes and an insulin pump: an iterative review of qualitative literature. Pract Diabetes2017;
34: 281–287.
31.
HertwigR.Psychology. Tapping into the wisdom of the crowd–with confidence. Science2012;
336: 303–304.
32.
JoensenLEMeldgaard AndersenMJensenS, et al.
The effect of peer support in adults with insulin pump-treated type 1 diabetes: a pilot study of a flexible and participatory intervention. Patient Prefer Adher2017;
11: 1879–1890.
33.
HolmanDSimmonsDOckendenN, et al.
Learning from the experience of peer support facilitators and study nurses in diabetes peer support: a qualitative study. Chronic Illness; Sep 7. Doi: 10.1177/1742395319873378.1742395319873378.
34.
JoensenLEFilgesTWillaingI.Patient perspectives on peer support for adults with type 1 diabetes: a need for diabetes-specific social capital.Patient Prefer Adher2016;
10: 1443–1451.
35.
GucciardiEReynoldsEKaramG, et al.
Group-based storytelling in disease self-management among people with diabetes. Chronic Illness; Jul 2. Doi: 10.1177/1742395319859395.
