Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The majority of people with type 1 diabetes have suboptimal glycemic control, increasing their complication risk. Technology to support diabetes self-care has advanced significantly and includes self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), insulin pump therapy (IPT), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAPT), which are stepping stones toward the “artificial pancreas” using closed-loop technology. Use of these technologies improves clinical outcomes for patients with the appropriate skills and motivation. This review addresses the psychosocial factors that influence both technology provision and clinical outcome and also how technology impacts on psychological outcomes. Optimal use of the various diabetes self-management technologies is influenced by previous self-care behaviors, demographic and psychological factors. Provision of IPT is also influenced by the same factors. Despite technology increasing the complexity of treatment, the lack of evidence for adverse psychological outcomes is reassuring. Treatment satisfaction is high, and discontinuation rates are low. However, technology will widen the health inequality gap if its use is limited to motivated patients who demonstrate good self-care behaviors. Pivotal to the success of the various technologies is provision of appropriate education at initiation of the technology, regular ongoing contact for treatment adjustments and trouble-shooting device issues plus access to psychological support when required. Additional support strategies may be required to help patients struggling with their diabetes to benefit from the available technology, recognizing that they may have most to gain.

Keywords

closed-loop technology insulin pumps psychology technology type 1 diabetes

Since 1921 technology has existed to replace insulin and treat diabetes. Although a definitive link was established between HbA1c and complication risk over 20 years ago,¹ only a minority achieve HbA1c targets despite intensified insulin regimens and new technologies.²

This narrative review focuses on how psychosocial functioning affects uptake and use of technologies and the impact of technology on psychosocial outcomes in adults and children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers. It examines evidence from large meta-analyses to small qualitative studies which provide detailed insight into technology use.

Self Monitoring of Blood Glucose

Frequent blood glucose testing should be a routine part of diabetes self-care^3,4 as it is integral to intensive insulin therapy¹ and improves glycemic control.⁵ However, studies of adult patients reveal low testing frequency,^6,7 which is influenced by psychosocial factors, with increased testing in patients of older age, female gender, longer diabetes duration, on basal bolus therapy compared with less intensive regimens, with decreased hypoglycemic awareness, higher “fear of hypoglycemia” and positive self-care personality traits⁶ and less testing in ethnic minorities, smokers, those with low education,⁸ low income and language barriers.⁷ In adolescents, testing is more frequent in younger age groups, higher social status, and higher self-efficacy and less frequent in those with lower self-esteem, high-stress life events, lower parental support,^9,10 from single parent, lower-income, and ethnic minorities, and when given self-care autonomy before reaching cognitive and social maturity.¹¹ In children, family functioning¹² and parental education¹³ predict adherence to diabetes self-management and glycemic control.

Qualitative studies in adults show that some perceive self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) as a tool to achieve good control and a normal life, but others see SMBG as a burden, citing practical difficulties, testing pain, and frustration with high results.¹⁴ A 5-step bio-psychosocial model of SMBG facilitates understanding of testing barriers:¹⁵ Step 1 is the decision to test: Some patients having extreme coping styles, with “blunters” who skip testing to avoid getting poor results and “monitors,” who test excessively, driven by fear and anxiety. Step 2 is the actual test: Barriers include pain and needle phobia. Step 3 is the interpretation of the results: Negative feedback from high readings leads to anger, frustration, and hopelessness. Step 4 is to act on the readings. Step 5 involves appraisal of the experience: Negative self-appraisal can decrease testing.

Despite being integral to diabetes care, SMBG is frequently not performed as recommend and is influenced by psychosocial variables. Recognizing and addressing barriers to SMBG will help support patients to achieve optimal diabetes outcomes.

Blood Glucose Meters With Automated Bolus Calculators

Intensive insulin therapy with carbohydrate counting requires insulin dose calculations based on preprandial blood glucose testings (BGTs), carbohydrate counting, variable insulin to carbohydrate ratios, insulin sensitivity, target BG levels, and active insulin. Such calculations are time-consuming and complex, particularly for patients with poor numeracy,¹⁶ increasing the self-management burden. Automated bolus calculators (ABCs) programmable with patient specific parameters provide insulin dose advice and improve carbohydrate counting competency,¹⁷ testing frequency,¹⁸ and glycemic control^17,19 in children and adults.

ABCs improve lifestyle flexibility, reduce fear of hypoglycemia,^17,18 improve confidence in bolus calculations and treatment satisfaction in children and adults.^17,18,20 ABCs are valued by adults with poor numeracy and when concentration is affected by hypo/hyperglycemia.²¹ Adult patients initially report double-checking the ABC dose advice, but this wanes as trust in the device increases.²¹ However, reliance on ABCs can have negative consequences if patients become deskilled, forget their ratios, stop recording data, and fail to recognize when changes are required.²¹

Bolus calculators improve outcomes and reduce self-care demands. However, to ensure ongoing benefit, patients need support to regularly review their data and make appropriate adjustments.

Pump Therapy

Meta-analyses show that insulin pump therapy (IPT) in adults and children improves glycemic control, without increasing severe hypoglycemia.^22-25 IPT in children improves complex cognitive task performance,²⁶ behavior, and mood.^26,27

Early studies of IPT reported increased diabetic ketoacidosis:²⁴ As pumps infuse only rapid acting insulin, any supply interruption increases blood glucose and ketones. Over 95% of pump problems are thought to be due to patient error,²⁸ therefore robust structured education is required at pump initiation, to minimize problems with IPT.^28,29

IPT is complex, demanding, and involves being permanently connected to a medical device, so could affect psychosocial functioning.^24,30 Two meta-analyses of pump versus basal bolus therapy (BBT) established that few studies assess psychosocial functioning, and different assessment tools precluded comparison between studies.^24,25 However, in all age groups there is no evidence of psychological harm and some benefit to pump therapy: Adults have improved or similar levels of depression, anxiety, family functioning, self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL),^24,25,31,32 adolescents have no change in QOL, depressive symptoms or locus of control²⁴ and parent carers have reduced stress and fear of hypoglycemia.³³

Many studies report high levels of satisfaction amongst pump users and their caregivers particularly for the flexibility it confers.^34-38 Pump patients also report a more collaborative relationship with their health care professional (HCP), which in combination with the pump facilitates better diabetes control.³⁴ However, pumps can create additional work and obligations for families because of the potential to do frequent correction doses and set temporary basal rates.³²

Patient self-care behaviors predict glycemic control on pumps: Higher SMBG and bolus frequency, bolus calculator and temporary basal rate use, and lower pre-pump HbA1c are associated with improved control.^39,40 The provision of pump therapy shows disparity, being strongly influenced by race, socioeconomic status, family functioning, and diabetes self-care behaviors.^41-43

However a meta-analysis identified that patients with the poorest control on MDI had the greatest reduction in HbA1c and therefore may have the most to gain from IPT.²³

Psychological variables also influence outcomes: Adult patients with a high internal locus of control feel responsible for the success of IPT, have greater treatment satisfaction and better HbA1c values than patients with a high external locus of control who ascribe outcomes to luck.⁴⁴ Qualitative research supports these findings: “Responders,” patients with good control report active involvement with their pump, realize it is simply a tool that requires regular attention and are cognizant of its limitations. Conversely patients with poor control tend to have more negative perceptions about pumps, take a passive approach, adhere poorly to pump self-management tasks, and have unrealistic expectations of IPT leading to discouragement and frustration.³⁸

Pumps offer flexibility and the potential of a more normal lifestyle, but are a constant reminder of diabetes and could affect body image. Body image concerns are more pronounced in women, who report self-consciousness from wearing their pump and the inevitable questions that arise.^35,38 Adolescent girls and women report practical challenges of wearing the pump unobtrusively,^35,38 which may explain higher rates of pump discontinuation amongst adolescent girls.⁴⁵ Social acceptance seems less of an issue for men, who report that widespread use of technological devices makes them more at ease with their pump.³⁸

Pump discontinuation is infrequent at about 4%,^25,45,46 probably reflecting high patient satisfaction and patient selection. Psychological reasons stated for stopping IPT include a greater sense of illness, worse mood, shame, and fear.⁴⁶

IPT is a useful tool in diabetes self-care and can improve QOL and glycemic control, but provision and outcomes are dependent on patients’ self-care behaviors and sociodemographic factors. Strategies are therefore needed to improve IPT access and outcomes for all.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors measure interstitial glucose every few minutes, and have evolved from systems that give retrospective data when removed and downloaded, to sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAPT) with pumps that display real-time data and alarm with hypo- and hyperglycemia. Pumps are now available with low glucose and predictive suspend functions that temporarily stop insulin infusion when glucose levels drop, to reduce the frequency and duration of hypoglycemia.

SAPT is associated with improved HbA1c without increasing hypoglycemia in patients with T1D when used consistently (≥6 days per week).^47-52 However, young adults and children are less likely to use sensors consistently, so do not attain the same glycemic control benefits as adults.^49,52 CGM use is higher in patients who do frequent SMBG⁵³ and those motivated to achieve good control,⁵⁴ and lower in patients with a high baseline HbA1c.^55,56 CGM users report high satisfaction overall,^55,57-61 but satisfaction is higher in frequent users ( days per week) and lower in adolescents.⁵⁵

CGM users can be categorized into “responders” who achieved an HbA1c reduction of 0.5%/5 mmol and “nonresponders” who do not.⁶² Qualitative research identified that nonresponders tended to have an emotions-based coping style and get frustrated with CGM. Conversely responders reported a self-controlled coping style, could problem-solve issues, and review data to identify patterns.⁶² Responders were also more likely than nonresponders to report their partner was interested in their CGM.⁶²

Several studies reported no QOL differences with SAPT,^57,61,63 but others found that SAPT improved diabetes-specific HRQOL (Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey Worry and Behaviour subscales)^58,59 and health and social functioning.⁶⁰ This is reassuring as there have been concerns that CGM data overload could have negative effects on QOL.^63,64 However its impact varies with age group, with trait anxiety higher in adolescents and lower in adults using CGM, compared with SMBG alone,⁶⁵ suggesting that CGM data may feel overwhelming in adolescents but empowering in adults.

Fear of nocturnal hypoglycemia is common, leading to regular overnight testing.⁶⁶ Parents may chose SAPT in hope of reducing sleep disturbance, but sleep may actually worsen if they wake frequently to check displayed glucose readings to see if adjustments are required.⁶⁷ SAPs with a low glucose suspend (LGS) function reduce hypoglycemia, without increasing mean glucose levels or risk of hyperglycemia^31,68,69 or diabetic ketoacidosis.⁶⁹ LGS is associated with high levels of parental satisfaction and makes parents feel their child is safer overnight.⁶⁹

The main barriers limiting CGM use are intrusive and irrelevant alarms,^54,62 skin irritation and sensor adherence^62,70 and body image concerns by making patients feel self-conscious and “robotic.”^54,55,62

CGM improves glycemic control when used consistently, but this can be difficult to achieve. CGM use and outcome is predicted by age, self-care behaviors and personality traits. Strategies are therefore needed to help patients optimize CGM use.

Artificial Pancreas—Closed-Loop Glucose Control

An “artificial pancreas” or closed-loop system contains a computer algorithm that continuously adjusts insulin delivery based on CGM readings. Closed-loop technology is evolving, from nocturnal closed-loop, to hybrid systems requiring some patient intervention, until ultimately the system is fully automated.⁷¹ True closed-loop systems could be in clinical use in the next decade.⁷² Patients perceive that closed-loop has the potential to optimize glucose control, reduce SMBG and disease burden and increase QOL.⁷³

Fear of nocturnal hypoglycemia can be a barrier to good control. Many patients or carers do routine overnight testing leading to disturbed sleep, anxiety, exhaustion and poor cognitive functioning.⁶⁶ Overnight closed-loop use reduces nocturnal hypoglycemia^74,75 and increases time spent with BGTs in target.^74-77 Patients and parents in overnight closed-loop studies reported the technology provided reassurance, that they trusted the device and experienced improved control. Although technical problems occurred (calibration, alarms and discomfort), patients reported that the psychological and physical benefits outweighed the difficulties. Importantly, patients using the system reported feeling “normal” rather than “diabetic.”⁷⁸

Great advances have been made with closed-loop at home studies underway,^72,76 and results of safety, clinical and psychological outcomes for patients and their carers are eagerly anticipated.

E-health Technologies to Support Diabetes Self-Management

Diabetes self-management is complex, requiring life-long behavior modification to optimize glycemic control and reduce complications. Behavioral support interventions typically require significant patient commitment and HCP resources, thus rarely become incorporated into routine clinical practice, limiting their impact.⁷⁹ In comparison, E-health technologies have the potential to deliver low-cost, convenient, tailored support to empower diabetes self-management^80-82 using the internet, mobile phone, decision support tools or telemedicine. Systematic reviews of a range of e-health interventions,^83,84 telemedicine,⁸⁵ and mobile phones⁸⁶ report improvements in clinical outcome, self-care and satisfaction.

A meta-analysis of the internet to promote diabetes health behavior change showed effect on behavior was small overall, but interventions incorporating behavior change theory showed larger effect sizes.⁸⁷

End-user satisfaction is evaluated in <50% of studies.⁸⁴ Post study technology adoption is rarely reported (≈4% of studies) and in those that do, it is only about 60%.⁸⁴ The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) identifies key factors affecting uptake of technology: perceived ease of use; perceived usefulness and perceived expectations of others. Therefore if technical difficulties occur or patients already have good control, adoption will be low. Conversely, IT interventions that are personalized, are multifaceted, promote self-care, and are integrated into existing infrastructure have greater success.⁸⁴

Addressing Barriers to Technology Use and Strategies to Optimize Outcomes

Currently availably diabetes technologies are not a panacea, but simply tools to support diabetes self-management. To achieve optimal control patients must have motivation to perform high levels of self-care including frequent BGTs and boluses, interpret data, make timely appropriate adjustments to therapy and in IPT, utilize the advanced pump functions.

SMBG is the simplest of the diabetes self-management tools, widely available yet performed as recommended by a minority. Patients need to be empowered to perform SMBG and use their results to optimize control, therefore addressing barriers to self-testing is a priority.^8,15 Questionnaires that assess fear of testing can be used to identify patients who may benefit from psychological therapy.⁸⁸ Problem solving techniques¹⁵ and motivational interviewing are useful strategies to increase adherence with SMBG.⁸⁹ Minimizing pain with alternative lancing devices,⁹⁰ alternative site testing,^91,92 or flash glucose monitoring systems,⁹³ may encourage testing. Encouraging patients to view results as “high” rather than “bad” increases testing frequency and improves HbA1c in adults and young people.⁹⁴ Paper-based diaries are useful but require patient commitment, and data interpretation is time-consuming for the HCP.⁹⁵ Technology can provide solutions for this: A systematic review of use of mobile phones to transmit data and send patients automated text/graphical or HCP feedback showed improved glycemic control in most studies, even those without HCP feedback, suggesting that this technology could be used to support self-management.⁹⁶ Bolus calculators also increase patients’ ability to use their SMBG results by providing “actionable advice”⁹⁷ empowering self-management.⁹⁸

To make optimal use of the available technologies, HCPs must ensure patients have realistic expectations³⁴ and reduce frustrations by addressing technological limitations, such as the lag-time between blood and interstitial glucose levels in CGM and providing coping strategies for managing alarms.^62,70,99

It must be recognized that the available technologies increase patients’ need for HCP support and education: Success with ABCs relies on blood glucose pattern recognition and making appropriate adjustments to the calculator settings when required. Similarly patients using pumps and CGM need a structured approach to interpret large volumes of data and make appropriate adjustments^21,62,70 and ongoing support to trouble-shoot device issues and sustain optimal use over time.^70,99

The critical role of HCP support was evident at the end of the DCCT study, when glycemic control deteriorated in the intensive group, probably because of decreased HCP contact.¹⁰⁰ Likewise, success of IPT versus BBT in randomized studies may be due to increased quality and quantity of education received by the pump patients.¹⁰¹ Outcomes of the REPOSE study, which provided equal structured education to adult patients randomized to both the pump and MDI arms, will be published soon and will provide insight into the role of education.¹⁰²

As patients with the highest HbA1c may benefit most from pump therapy,²³ it is important they are not excluded for being unsuitable. Otherwise diabetes technologies could continue to widen the health inequality gap, as race, socioeconomic status, family functioning, and diabetes self-care behaviors predict provision of pump therapy.^41-43 The REPOSE study included a qualitative evaluation of HCPs’ perceptions of which patients benefit most from IPT.²¹ HCPs reported they had previously selected patients with the personal and psychological attributes they felt were suited to pump therapy, but results of the REPOSE study challenged this, as they recognized that patients previously thought unsuitable for pump therapy had good outcomes and for some was a “tipping point” for increased engagement.²¹ It may therefore be appropriate to broaden patient selection criteria for IPT, and develop evidence-based interventions to help patients struggling with their diabetes⁴³ or with literacy and numeracy issues,¹⁰³ to benefit from IPT. Technology combined with appropriate psychological support may be a powerful motivator of health behavior change.²³ However although psychological support is a recognized standard of diabetes care,¹⁰⁴ it is not available to all^105,106 so there is also an imperative for all diabetes HCPs to become behavioral experts.⁸

Greater parental involvement is associated with better glycemic control in children.^12,107,108 Encouraging parents to remain involved in SMBG and interpretation and reducing family conflict during adolescence may prevent deterioration of glycemic control common in this age group.^12,109 Diabetes technologies could inhibit parental involvement by exposing the “digital gap” between young people who have grown up in the digital generation and their parents who find technology less intuitive to use.¹¹⁰ Good parental knowledge of pump functions is related to better outcomes, whereas parents less skilled with pumps secondary to the “digital gap,” are more likely to transfer responsibility for diabetes self-management to their children, with worse glycemic outcomes.¹¹¹ HCPs should therefore encourage parents’ pump competency to ensure they can optimally support their children. Similarly, as partner understanding of CGM predicts better outcomes, HCPs should invite partners to educational programmes.⁶²

Ongoing research and development will help address barriers to device use. For example an integrated pump cannula with CGM may improve sensor use and glucose control.¹¹² Including usability and intuitiveness evaluations during device development is paramount, as unsurprisingly patients report preferences for pumps and sensors they find easier to use.^113,114 Remote monitoring systems for CGM and IPTs that wirelessly transmit data to a monitor in the parents’ room addresses parental fear of nocturnal hypoglycemia that is often a barrier to optimal overnight control.¹¹⁵ Closed-loop technology is close to a clinical reality and will reduce the human behavioral elements that are a barrier to optimal diabetes management,²⁸ and is eagerly anticipated for its potential to improve glycemic control and QOL whilst reducing disease burden.^73,78

IT interventions have the potential to deliver low-cost accessible self-management support, but to be successful they should be theoretically grounded and deliver a comprehensive intervention. Incorporating user-centered sociotechnical design⁸⁴ will help create applications that fit with patients needs.⁸⁵ Their effectiveness should be evaluated in terms of motivation, adherence, cost, adoption, satisfaction and clinical outcomes.⁸⁴ IT applications incorporating HCP feedback are an important motivation for self-care,⁸⁴ so research should focus on the impact of different feedback types (including automated electronic feedback) on self-care and outcomes.⁸⁵ Developing interventions for tablets and mobile phones may increase participant uptake and reduce attrition, particularly in adolescents⁸³ and low-income countries. Likewise use of gaming technology^116,117 and mobile phone apps provide formats that may increase patient engagement. However, a review of apps showed only a few improved glycemic outcomes compared with controls,¹¹⁸ and had been tested for safety and efficacy or obtained regulatory approval, which is concerning if they are used as decision support tools.¹¹⁹ Developing guidelines and legislation for E-health would protect HCPs and patients alike.⁸³

Conclusion

Closed-loop technology may overcome many of the barriers to optimal clinical outcomes. However, until it is routinely available there is a need for evidence based interventions and further studies which include representative patients with intervention and control groups that receive equal education and support, to address applicability to normal clinic populations. Studies of emerging technologies should also incorporate standardized psychosocial measures to evaluate QOL and treatment satisfaction in addition to glycemic control.

Our common goal must be to devise and deliver diabetes self-management support so that all patients have access to technology and can optimize its use to improve their glycemic control and QOL, without increasing burden of treatment.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

ABC, automated bolus calculators; APP, application; BBT, basal bolus therapy; BGTs, blood glucose testing; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring; DCCT, Diabetes Control and Complications Trial; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HCP, health care professional; IPT, insulin pump therapy; LGS, low glucose suspend; QOL, quality of life; SAPT, sensor-augmented pump therapy; SMBG, self-monitoring of blood glucose; T1D, type 1 diabetes.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):977-986.

McKnight

Wild

Lamb

. Glycaemic control of type 1 diabetes in clinical practice early in the 21st century: an international comparison. Diabet Med. 2015;32(8):1036-1050.

Rewers

Pillay

de Beaufort

. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2014. Assessment and monitoring of glycemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014;15(suppl 20):102-114.

American Diabetes Association. Executive summary: standards of medical care in diabetes—2014. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(suppl 1):S5-S13.

Miller

Beck

Bergenstal

. Evidence of a strong association between frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels in T1D exchange clinic registry participants. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):2009-2014.

Hansen

Pedersen-Bjergaard

Heller

. Frequency and motives of blood glucose self-monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009;85(2):183-188.

Karter

Ferrara

Darbinian

Ackerson

Selby

JV.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose: language and financial barriers in a managed care population with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(4):477-483.

Fisher

. Barriers and behaviors in blood glucose monitoring. Touch Briefings. 2007:51.

Ingerski

Anderson

Dolan

Hood

KK.

Blood glucose monitoring and glycemic control in adolescence: contribution of diabetes-specific responsibility and family conflict. J Adolesc Health. 2010;47(2):191-197.

10.

Helgeson

Honcharuk

Becker

Escobar

Siminerio

A focus on blood glucose monitoring: relation to glycemic control and determinants of frequency. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;12(1):25-30.

11.

Delamater

Jacobson

Anderson

. Psychosocial therapies in diabetes: report of the Psychosocial Therapies Working Group. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(7):1286-1292.

12.

Anderson

Brackett

Finkelstein

Laffel

Parental involvement in diabetes management tasks: relationships to blood glucose monitoring adherence and metabolic control in young adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr. 1997;130(2):257-265.

13.

Haugstvedt

Wentzel-Larsen

Rokne

Graue

Psychosocial family factors and glycemic control among children aged 1-15 years with type 1 diabetes: a population-based survey. BMC Pediatr. 2011;11:118,2431-11-118.

14.

Hortensius

Kars

Wierenga

Kleefstra

Bilo

van der Bijl

JJ.

Perspectives of patients with type 1 or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes on self-monitoring of blood glucose: a qualitative study. BMC Pub Health. 2012;12:167,2458-12-167.

15.

Snoek

Malanda

de Wit

Self-monitoring of blood glucose: psychological barriers and benefits. EDN. 2008;5(3):112-115.

16.

Kerr

Poor numeracy: the elephant in the diabetes technology room. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(6):1284-1287.

17.

Ziegler

Cavan

Cranston

. Use of an insulin bolus advisor improves glycemic control in multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy patients with suboptimal glycemic control: first results from the ABACUS trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(11):3613-3619.

18.

Barnard

Parkin

Young

Ashraf

Use of an automated bolus calculator reduces fear of hypoglycemia and improves confidence in dosage accuracy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated with multiple daily insulin injections. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(1):144-149.

19.

Rabbone

Scaramuzza

Ignaccolo

. Carbohydrate counting with an automated bolus calculator helps to improve glycaemic control in children with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injection therapy: an 18-month observational study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;103(3):388-394.

20.

Schmidt

Meldgaard

Serifovski

. Use of an automated bolus calculator in MDI-treated type 1 diabetes: the BolusCal Study, a randomized controlled pilot study. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(5):984-990.

21.

Lawton

Kirkham

Rankin

. Perceptions and experiences of using automated bolus advisors amongst people with type 1 diabetes: a longitudinal qualitative investigation. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;106(3):443-450.

22.

Monami

Lamanna

Marchionni

Mannucci

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injections in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Acta Diabetol. 2010;47(suppl 1):77-81.

23.

Pickup

Sutton

AJ.

Severe hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes: meta-analysis of multiple daily insulin injections compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabet Med. 2008;25(7):765-774.

24.

Weissberg-Benchell

Antisdel-Lomaglio

Seshadri

Insulin pump therapy: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(4):1079-1087.

25.

Pankowska

Blazik

Dziechciarz

Szypowska

Szajewska

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs. multiple daily injections in children with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10(1):52-58.

26.

Knight

Northam

Donath

. Improvements in cognition, mood and behaviour following commencement of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study. Diabetologia. 2009;52(2):193-198.

27.

Knight

Northam

Cameron

Ambler

GR.

Behaviour and metabolic control in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus on insulin pump therapy: 2-year follow-up. Diabet Med. 2011;28(9):1109-1112.

28.

Klonoff

Reyes

JS.

Insulin pump safety meeting: summary report. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(2):396-402.

29.

Grunberger

Abelseth

Bailey

. Consensus statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Insulin Pump Management Task Force. Endocr Pract. 2014;20(5):463.

30.

Boland

Grey

Oesterle

Fredrickson

Tamborlane

WV.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. A new way to lower risk of severe hypoglycemia, improve metabolic control, and enhance coping in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(11):1779-1784.

31.

Weiss

Garg

Bode

. Hypoglycemia reduction and changes in hemoglobin A1c in the ASPIRE In-Home Study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(8):542-547.

32.

Rankin

Harden

Noyes

Waugh

Barnard

Lawton

Parents’ experiences of managing their child’s diabetes using an insulin pump: a qualitative study. Diabet Med. 2015;32(5):627-634.

33.

Muller-Godeffroy

Treichel

Wagner

, German Working Group for Paediatric Pump Therapy. Investigation of quality of life and family burden issues during insulin pump therapy in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus—a large-scale multicentre pilot study. Diabet Med. 2009;26(5):493-501.

34.

Todres

Keen

Kerr

. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: patient experiences of “living with a machine.” Diabet Med. 2010;27(10):1201-1204.

35.

Alsaleh

Smith

Taylor

KM.

Experiences of children/young people and their parents, using insulin pump therapy for the management of type 1 diabetes: qualitative review. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37(2):140-147.

36.

Alsaleh

Smith

Thompson

Al-Saleh

Taylor

KM.

Insulin pump therapy: impact on the lives of children/young people with diabetes mellitus and their parents. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(5):1023-1030.

37.

Juvenile Diabetes Research Federation, Diabetes Australia. Phase 2: review of the clinical benefits of insulin pump therapy for type 1 diabetes. 2013.

38.

Ritholz

Smaldone

Lee

Castillo

Wolpert

Weinger

Perceptions of psychosocial factors and the insulin pump. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(3):549-554.

39.

Shalitin

Gil

Nimri

de Vries

Gavan

Phillip

Predictors of glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes commencing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. Diabet Med. 2010;27(3):339-347.

40.

Wilkinson

McFann

Chase

HP.

Factors affecting improved glycaemic control in youth using insulin pumps. Diabet Med. 2010;27(10):1174-1177.

41.

Hine

Senniappan

Sankar

Amin

Deprivation impedes success of insulin intensification in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes; longitudinal linear mixed modelling of a retrospective observational cohort. Diabet Med. 2011;28(3):338-344.

42.

Lin

Connor

Ruedy

. Race, socioeconomic status, and treatment center are associated with insulin pump therapy in youth in the first year following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15(11):929-934.

43.

Cortina

Repaske

Hood

KK.

Sociodemographic and psychosocial factors associated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11(5):337-344.

44.

Aberle

Scholz

Bach-Kliegel

. Psychological aspects in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: a retrospective study. J Psychol. 2009;143(2):147-160.

45.

Hofer

Heidtmann

Raile

. Discontinuation of insulin pump treatment in children, adolescents, and young adults. A multicenter analysis based on the DPV database in Germany and Austria. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11(2):116-121.

46.

Binek

Rembierz-Knoll

Polanska

Jarosz-Chobot

. The reasons for pump discontinuation in children with diabetes type 1 (T1DM). Pediatr Diabetes. 2013:46.

47.

Norgaard

Scaramuzza

Bratina

. Routine sensor-augmented pump therapy in type 1 diabetes: the INTERPRET study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15(4):273-280.

48.

Battelino

Conget

Olsen

. The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2012;55(12):3155-3162.

49.

Bergenstal

Tamborlane

Ahmann

. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):311-320.

50.

Hermanides

Norgaard

Bruttomesso

. Sensor-augmented pump therapy lowers HbA(1c) in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes; a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2011;28(10):1158-1167.

51.

Hirsch

Abelseth

Bode

. Sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy: results of the first randomized treat-to-target study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10(5):377-383.

52.

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group, Tamborlane

Beck

. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(14):1464-1476.

53.

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose MonitoringStudy Group, Beck

Buckingham

. Factors predictive of use and of benefit from continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(11):1947-1953.

54.

Schmidt

Duun-Henriksen

Norgaard

Psychosocial factors and adherence to continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(4):986-987.

55.

Tansey

Laffel

Cheng

. Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring in adults and youths with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2011;28(9):1118-1122.

56.

Glowinska-Olszewska

Tobiaszewska

Luczynski

Bossowski

Monthly use of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system as an educational and motivational tool for poorly controlled type 1 diabetes adolescents. Adv Med Sci. 2013;58(2):344-352.

57.

Rubin

Peyrot

Treatment satisfaction and quality of life for an integrated continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system compared to self-monitoring plus an insulin pump. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(6):1402-1410.

58.

Rubin

Peyrot

, STAR 3 Study Group. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in the Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C Reduction 3 (STAR 3) trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14(2):143-151.

59.

Norgaard

Scaramuzza

Bratina

. Routine sensor-augmented pump therapy in type 1 diabetes: the INTERPRET study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15(4):273-280.

60.

Jenkins

Krishnamurthy

Best

. Evaluation of an algorithm to guide patients with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on how to respond to real-time continuous glucose levels: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(6):1242-1248.

61.

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group, Beck

Lawrence

. Quality-of-life measures in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(10):2175-2177.

62.

Ritholz

Atakov-Castillo

Beste

. Psychosocial factors associated with use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabet Med. 2010;27(9):1060-1065.

63.

Hommel

Olsen

Battelino

. Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and use of medical care resources: analyses from the SWITCH study. Acta Diabetol. 2014;51(5):845-851.

64.

Danne

Lange

Kordonouri

Real-time glucose sensors in children and adolescents with type-1 diabetes. Horm Res. 2008;70(4):193-202.

65.

Markowitz

Pratt

Aggarwal

Volkening

Laffel

LM.

Psychosocial correlates of continuous glucose monitoring use in youth and adults with type 1 diabetes and parents of youth. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14(6):523-526.

66.

Barnard

Thomas

Royle

Noyes

Waugh

Fear of hypoglycaemia in parents of young children with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:50,2431-10-50.

67.

Landau

Rachmiel

Pinhas-Hamiel

. Parental sleep quality and continuous glucose monitoring system use in children with type 1 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2014;51(3):499-503.

68.

Agrawal

Zhong

Welsh

Shah

Kaufman

FR.

Retrospective analysis of the real-world use of the threshold suspend feature of sensor-augmented insulin pumps. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(5):316-319.

69.

Danne

Kordonouri

Holder

. Prevention of hypoglycemia by using low glucose suspend function in sensor-augmented pump therapy. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(11):1129-1134.

70.

Messer

Ruedy

Xing

. Educating families on real time continuous glucose monitoring: the DirecNet navigator pilot study experience. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(1):124-135.

71.

Dassau

Atlas

Phillip

Closing the loop. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2011;(170):20-25.

72.

Hovorka

Artificial pancreas project at Cambridge 2013. Diabet Med. 2015;32(8):987-992.

73.

van Bon

Kohinor

Hoekstra

von Basum

deVries

JH.

Patients’ perception and future acceptance of an artificial pancreas. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(3):596-602.

74.

Nimri

Muller

Atlas

. MD-Logic overnight control for 6 weeks of home use in patients with type 1 diabetes: randomized crossover trial. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(11):3025-3032.

75.

Phillip

Battelino

Atlas

. Nocturnal glucose control with an artificial pancreas at a diabetes camp. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(9):824-833.

76.

Thabit

Lubina-Solomon

Stadler

. Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(9):701-709.

77.

Breton

Farret

Bruttomesso

. Fully integrated artificial pancreas in type 1 diabetes: modular closed-loop glucose control maintains near normoglycemia. Diabetes. 2012;61(9):2230-2237.

78.

Barnard

Wysocki

Allen

. Closing the loop overnight at home setting: psychosocial impact for adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2014;2(1):e000025.

79.

Hampson

Skinner

Hart

. Behavioral interventions for adolescents with type 1 diabetes: how effective are they? Diabetes Care. 2000;23(9):1416-1422.

80.

Fjeldsoe

Marshall

Miller

YD.

Behavior change interventions delivered by mobile telephone short-message service. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(2):165-173.

81.

McNamara

JPH

Reid

Freedland

Righi

Geffken

. Contributing factors to poor adherence and glycemic control in pediatric type 1 diabetes: facilitating a move toward telehealth. In: Liu

, ed. Type 1 Diabetes—Pathogenesis, Complications and Alternative Treatments. Rijeka, Croatia: In-Tech; 2011:141-158.

82.

Pagliari

Sloan

Gregor

. What is eHealth (4): a scoping exercise to map the field. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e9.

83.

Balkhi

Reid

Westen

Olsen

Janicke

Geffken

GR.

Telehealth interventions to reduce management complications in type 1 diabetes: A review. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(3):371-379.

84.

El-Gayar

Timsina

Nawar

Eid

A systematic review of IT for diabetes self-management: are we there yet?

Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(8):637-652.

85.

Verhoeven

Tanja-Dijkstra

Nijland

Eysenbach

van Gemert-Pijnen

Asynchronous and synchronous teleconsultation for diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(3):666-684.

86.

Liang

Wang

Yang

. Effect of mobile phone intervention for diabetes on glycaemic control: a meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2011;28(4):455-463.

87.

Webb

Joseph

Yardley

Michie

Using the internet to promote health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e4.

88.

Mollema

Snoek

Pouwer

Heine

van der Ploeg

HM.

Diabetes Fear of Injecting and Self-Testing Questionnaire: a psychometric evaluation. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(6):765-769.

89.

Fisher

Cornman

Kohut

TSH

Stenger

What primary care providers can do to address barriers to self-monitoring of blood glucose. Clin Diabetes. 2013;31(1):34.

90.

Kocher

Tshiananga

Koubek

Comparison of lancing devices for self-monitoring of blood glucose regarding lancing pain. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(5):1136-1143.

91.

Tieszen

New

JP.

Alternate site blood glucose testing: do patients prefer it?

Diabet Med. 2003;20(4):325-328.

92.

Ito

Kamoi

Minagawa

Kimura

Kobayashi

Patient perceptions of different lancing sites for self-monitoring of blood glucose: a comparison of fingertip site with palm site using the OneTouch Ultra Blood Glucose Monitoring System. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(4):906-910.

93.

Bailey

Bode

Christiansen

Klaff

Alva

The performance and usability of a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(11):787-794.

94.

Moreland

Volkening

Lawlor

Chalmers

Anderson

Laffel

LM.

Use of a blood glucose monitoring manual to enhance monitoring adherence in adults with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6):689-695.

95.

Choudhary

Genovese

Reach

Blood glucose pattern management in diabetes: creating order from disorder. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(6):1575-1584.

96.

Baron

McBain

Newman

The impact of mobile monitoring technologies on glycosylated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(5):1185-1196.

97.

Kerr

Messing

Resch

Actionable self-monitoring of blood glucose: redefining the role for patients using multiple daily injection therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(6):1584-1590.

98.

Colin

Paris

Glucose meters with built-in automated bolus calculator: gadget or real value for insulin-treated diabetic patients?

Diabetes Ther. 2013;4(1):1-11.

99.

Phillip

Danne

Shalitin

. Use of continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes. 2012;13(3):215-228.

100.

Writing Team for the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group. Effect of intensive therapy on the microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 2002;287(19):2563-2569.

101.

Cummins

Royle

Snaith

Greene

Robertson

McIntyre

LWN

. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CSII for diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:1-228.

102.

Lawton

Kirkham

Rankin

. 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 Med. 2016;33(2):243-251.

103.

Cavanaugh

Wallston

Gebretsadik

. Addressing literacy and numeracy to improve diabetes care: two randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(12):2149-2155.

104.

Randell

. Paediatric best practice tariff criteria. 2011. Available at: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/nhs-diabetes/paediatrics/Paediatric%20Diabetes%20Best%20Practice%20Tariff%20Criteria.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2016.

105.

Jefferson

Swift

Skinner

Hood

GK.

Diabetes services in the UK: third national survey confirms continuing deficiencies. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88(1):53-56.

106.

Psychology Working Group for the Scottish Diabetes Group. Review of psychological provision to adults and children with diabetes in Scotland. 2006. Available at: http://www.diabetesinscotland.org.uk/publications/sdg%20psychology%20report%202006.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2016.

107.

Neylon

O’Connell

Skinner

Cameron

FJ.

Demographic and personal factors associated with metabolic control and self-care in youth with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2013;29(4):257-272.

108.

Rausch

Rohan

. Autonomy support and responsibility-sharing predict blood glucose monitoring frequency among youth with diabetes. Health Psychol. 2014;33(10):1224-1231.

109.

Laffel

Vangsness

Connell

Goebel-Fabbri

Butler

Anderson

BJ.

Impact of ambulatory, family-focused teamwork intervention on glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr. 2003;142(4):409-416.

110.

Liberman

Phillip

Buckingham

Diabetes technology and the human factor. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(suppl 1):S109-S118.

111.

Mitchell

Johnson

Cullen

Lee

Hardy

OT.

Parental mastery of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion skills and glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15(7):591-595.

112.

O’Neal

Adhya

Jenkins

Ward

Welsh

Voskanyan

Feasibility of adjacent insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring via the Medtronic Combo-Set. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(2):381-388.

113.

Matuleviciene

Joseph

Andelin

. A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the Dexcom G4 sensor (Dexcom G4 system) and Enlite sensor (guardian REAL-time system) tested simultaneously in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014;16(11):759-767.

114.

Chamberlain

Gilgen

Do perceptions of insulin pump usability impact attitudes toward insulin pump therapy? A pilot study of individuals with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;9(1):105-110.

115.

Kaiserman

Buckingham

Prakasam

. Acceptability and utility of the mySentry remote glucose monitoring system. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(2):356-361.

116.

Kumar

Wentzell

Mikkelsen

Pentland

Laffel

LM.

The DAILY (Daily Automated Intensive Log for Youth) trial: a wireless, portable system to improve adherence and glycemic control in youth with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2004;6(4):445-453.

117.

Klingensmith

Aisenberg

Kaufman

. Evaluation of a combined blood glucose monitoring and gaming system (Didget(R)) for motivation in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2013;14(5):350-357.

118.

El-Gayar

Timsina

Nawar

Eid

Mobile applications for diabetes self-management: status and potential. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(1):247-262.

119.

Klonoff

DC.

The current status of mHealth for diabetes: will it be the next big thing?

J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(3):749-758.

Influences on Technology Use and Efficacy in Type 1 Diabetes

Abstract

Keywords

Self Monitoring of Blood Glucose

Blood Glucose Meters With Automated Bolus Calculators

Pump Therapy

Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy

Artificial Pancreas—Closed-Loop Glucose Control

E-health Technologies to Support Diabetes Self-Management

Addressing Barriers to Technology Use and Strategies to Optimize Outcomes

Conclusion

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References