Abstract
Diabetes technology continues to advance, with more individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) adopting insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems that integrate real-time glucose data with an algorithm to assist with insulin dosing decisions. These technologies are linked with benefits to glycemic outcomes (e.g. increased time in target range), diabetes management behaviors, and quality of life. However, current devices and systems are not without barriers and hassles for the user. The intent of this review is to describe the personal challenges and reactions that users experience when interacting with current diabetes technologies, which can affect their acceptance and motivation to engage with their devices. This review will discuss user experiences and strategies to address three main areas: (i) the emotional burden of utilizing a wearable device; (ii) the perceived and experienced negative social consequences of device use; and (iii) the practical challenges of wearing devices.
Introduction
Diabetes devices are rapidly advancing in their features and functionalities, offering a range of benefits for individuals with type 1 diabetes who opt to use this technology. Current diabetes technology includes insulin pumps; continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGM); and automated insulin delivery systems (AID) that combine the pump and CGM functions through an algorithm that can assist with regulating glucose levels. In the past 6 years, five distinct AID systems received FDA approval and are available to the public, demonstrating significant benefits to time-in-range and other glycemic outcomes (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8; https://diatribe.org/omnipod-5-approved-fda). This year, an additional do-it-yourself AID system was also cleared for use in the US for the first time (https://diatribe.org/tidepool-loop-cleared-fda). Additionally, two new CGM models were released in the US (https://www.jdrf.org/blog/2022/12/08/dexcom-g7-continuous-glucose-monitor-cleared-fda/; https://www.jdrf.org/blog/2022/05/31/fda-approved-abbott-freestyle-libre-3-continuous-glucose-monitor-ages-4/). Large US, European, and international registry studies have found that compared to non-users of CGM, CGM users had fewer severe hypoglycemic events, fewer episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and better overall diabetes management (as assessed through HbA1c) (8, 9, 10, 11). These advanced technologies have also shown benefits in improving diabetes distress and quality of life (12, 13, 14, 15), and the benefits to the user will likely continue to grow and evolve as technology advances. However, many will continue to experience known barriers and hassles associated with device use (16, 17, 18), as well as potential new challenges to using new device features and functions. It is important to understand the scope of challenges that users perceive and experience when using devices, as the everyday burdens of device use, and the emotional experience of those burdens, will likely drive decisions to start diabetes devices (uptake); to use devices over time (sustained use); and to use diabetes devices most effectively (optimal use). Users will engage in a personal cost–benefit analysis of whether devices are worthwhile to use prior to uptake and throughout use, whether actively or subconsciously, as each experience with technology contributes to their overall impression of their devices.
In this review, we will examine current literature on patient-reported, everyday challenges to diabetes device uptake and sustained/optimal use and discuss potential approaches to address these burdens. We have organized challenges into three overarching areas: (i) the emotional burden of utilizing a wearable device; (ii) the perceived and experienced negative social consequences of device use; and (iii) the practical challenges of wearing devices. Regardless of the type of challenge that occurs, users will inevitably experience a personal reaction that contributes to their thought process around using devices. Thus, this review emphasizes the potential feelings or emotional reactions that users may experience in response to each barrier they face.
Methods
We conducted a narrative review of the literature on barriers, burdens, and challenges to the uptake and use of diabetes technologies. We also searched the literature on processes to increase technology uptake, sustained use, and optimal use. Given the rapidly changing landscape of diabetes technologies, this review emphasizes research published within the last 5 years.
Emotional burdens
Diabetes technologies all require attention, effort, and adaptation to unplanned management needs to ensure that devices and systems are working optimally. The stress of managing devices can lead to a significant emotional burden in people with T1D. For some, negative emotional responses to device use can be specific to device features and functionalities (e.g. excessive alerts). Others may perceive devices as part of the greater burden of living with diabetes, affecting their well-being. Emotional challenges likely have a cyclical nature with device uptake and use, as negative emotions can affect motivation and engagement, which in turn can affect the efficacy of the devices and which may cause more emotional burden in needing to troubleshoot issues.
Day-to-day challenges of diabetes technologies can elicit negative emotional responses. All diabetes technologies require user interaction with the system, from placing the site on the body to planned management behaviors to troubleshooting unplanned issues with devices. The need for constant interaction with the system can be emotionally taxing. Users have described devices as a physical reminder of having diabetes (19, 20) and their upkeep disruptive to daily activities at times (21). Continuous glucose monitoring and AID systems also make glucose data easily accessible to the user. This can be a source of emotional burden, as large amounts of data can lead to feeling overwhelmed by ‘data overload’ (22). Users and caregivers report challenges with navigating data in real-time and/or retrospectively to identify patterns and make dosing adjustments (19, 23, 24). Multiple studies have noted responding to alerts and alarms as a significant disruption and source of frustration for users (20, 21, 25, 26, 27). While alerts offer a safety net for users by warning them of out-of-range glucose levels or device issues (e.g. signal loss and site failure), users have suggested that alarms can evoke strong negative emotional responses in people (e.g. anger, frustration, and panic) (25) or feelings of failure in not achieving target glucose levels (23). They can also contribute to sleep disruptions (15). Notably, unexpected alerts can be particularly frustrating because they require users to engage in ‘extra,’ unplanned technology management (28). Alerts that feel disruptive or excessive can lead to ‘alarm fatigue,’ in which people become desensitized and respond less to alert sounds and may discontinue use (29).
Body image concerns may further impede the use of devices that must be worn on the body (30, 31). A large national survey of 1503 adults with T1D conducted through the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange (T1DX) clinic registry found that 26% of adults reported they did not ‘like how diabetes devices look on my body’ (16). Another study of adults using CGM identified body image concerns around device use because people felt self-conscious about a device on the body and viewed it as a physical announcement of their diabetes (19).
Importantly, perceptions play an important role in the emotional challenges of using devices. People may be more likely to start and sustain the use of diabetes devices if they have realistic expectations (32), have trust in the accuracy and reliability of devices (33), and have a perception of the benefits of their devices for their own lives (34). Perceptions of usefulness and ease of use have been highlighted as key indicators of device uptake and sustained use (35). Diabetes management is already demanding; it is possible that when challenges outweigh the benefits of technology, users experience greater emotional distress around diabetes care and may discontinue use. Much research suggests that devices are associated with reduced distress in people with diabetes (36, 37, 38), while others suggest devices may contribute to the overall burden of diabetes (39). Studies of adults in the T1DX Registry as well as youth and adults in Germany and the Netherlands have identified the presence of elevated distress regardless of if/what technology is used (40, 41, 42); however, those who report more barriers to technology use have also been found to endorse greater distress (16). Age and life stage can also play a role in the acceptance and use of diabetes devices. Older adults may experience different priorities, benefits, and barriers when engaging with diabetes devices (43) compared to youth, young adults, or parents of children with T1D.
The relationship between diabetes devices and distress is likely influenced by person-specific factors, such as expectations of devices, perceptions of technology, and (good and bad) experiences with devices. For example, financial burden is a significant concern for people with diabetes as it affects access to supplies (44, 45, 46), and people who experience significant financial toxicity around diabetes management experience more distress (47). A qualitative study of older adults with T1D using AID systems found that while participants experienced benefits to their diabetes management and quality of life from the technology, they also described weighing these benefits against the high costs and feeling ‘penalized’ financially due to the cost of devices (15). Thus, people who struggle to afford their devices may experience emotional distress around device use and navigating device issues, which could affect their supply.
Notably, frequently reported modifiable challenges to device use that people endorse are ways in which diabetes devices affect their self-perception, including disliking wearing devices, poor body image, and fear of stigma (16, 18, 19, 48, 49). These barriers highlight a fundamental challenge in one’s experience living with diabetes: accepting diabetes into one’s identity. ‘Identity’ refers to how one thinks of themselves, influenced by social networks, different environments, and personal experiences (50, 51). The process of integrating a chronic illness like diabetes into one’s identity is not always easy; people may struggle to accept diabetes and its treatment as part of their life and self, particularly when treatment for diabetes can be intrusive, affect perceptions of normalcy, and bring on judgment from others (52). Previous research suggests that more positive acceptance of diabetes and its treatment as part of one’s identity is associated with better glycemic and psychosocial outcomes (53, 54, 55).
There are many potential avenues to mitigate the emotional challenges to uptake and use of diabetes technologies. Structured education on devices, at initiation and as new challenges occur, can be valuable in reducing frustration and distress around device use (32, 56, 57, 58). Furthermore, it is imperative for clinicians to ensure that users have realistic expectations of what their devices can do (59, 60). There are also opportunities for patient-centered discussion and a teamwork approach to device uptake and use between patients and their providers. A qualitative study of racially/ethnically diverse young adults found that provider optimism about technology and tailored discussion of how technology would benefit the patient helped them feel more open and accepting of technology (61). Shared decision-making is also beneficial to device acceptance (61, 62), as this may help users to feel empowered in their informed decision to start technology. Additionally, given the known psychosocial impact of diabetes technologies (63), involvement of mental and behavioral health-care providers can be impactful in assisting people with adjusting and adapting to the emotional burdens of wearable technologies. Psychosocial care has been encouraged as a part of standard diabetes care (64) given the significant mental and emotional burden of diabetes management, suggesting that psychosocial care is applicable to technology use as well. There is also an opportunity to harness the concept of identity in encouraging device use. A recently developed measure of incorporation of diabetes into identity suggests three key processes in incorporation: stigma management, adjustment to perceived interference, and benefit-finding (55). Together, these concepts align with the commonly reported barriers to technology use. The process of incorporation is worthy of further study to investigate if and how addressing identity may be utilized to promote optimal, sustained diabetes device use.
Perceptions and experiences of social consequences of device use
Wearing and using diabetes devices can bring up situations and challenges specific to social contexts with peers, at school, at work, and with family and other relationships. The large T1DX device barriers survey in adults and older adolescents found that around 10% of the respondents endorsed ‘Worries about what others will think of me’ and ‘I do not like diabetes devices because people notice them and ask questions about them’ (16). Further investigation via cluster analysis uncovered that those endorsing these specific social barriers tended to be younger adults with elevated diabetes distress (65). Similarly, in the T1DX study of adolescent-reported barriers to device use, 20% of adolescents endorsed worries about what others would think and 17% endorsed disliking devices because people would notice and ask questions about them (18). These findings are consistent with other research highlighting how adolescents and young adults feel that their T1D makes them unlike their peers, brings on negative judgment from others, or draws unwanted attention to themselves (52, 66, 67, 68, 69). It follows that having a device or devices worn on the body, that may be visible and audible to others, can contribute to concerns around stigmatization, which can make it more challenging to engage with devices in social situations (49).
Current technology also includes advanced features that may raise social concerns for the device user. For example, CGM systems allow for sharing data with one’s health-care team as well as with one’s social support system if they choose to use these features. Retrospective analysis of engagement data from over 26,000 CGM users with T1D has shown that a minority (38.7%) enable data-sharing features (70). This study did not explore factors contributing to sharing or not sharing data; however, other research has shed light on barriers that some CGM users experience when considering sharing data with a trusted person. If an individual with T1D is concerned that sharing their data with a spouse, partner, family member, or friend could add burden for that person, that concern may deter the individual from taking advantage of these features (20). Qualitative studies with youth and parents suggest that remote monitoring by parents is useful but could lead to increased frustration or conflict if data sharing results in excessive communication or involvement in diabetes care when the adolescent prefers to manage independently (25, 71, 72). Further, concerns about alarms being disruptive to the people around them, whether at home, at school, work, or elsewhere, may lead someone to silence or turn off alarms that could otherwise be helpful and contribute to improved diabetes management.
Efforts to promote sustained and optimal use of diabetes devices will need to attend to individual preferences for disclosing their diagnosis and/or engaging in social support in order to be effective. Discussion around disclosure of diabetes, particularly given the potential for devices to draw attention from others, may be valuable in helping people feel more control over others’ perceptions of devices and reduce perceived stigma. Tailored education may be beneficial in helping people understand how to customize alerts and help them feel empowered to proactively customize them to fit their life. In addition, enhancing problem-solving skills may help to work through specific social-related concerns, such as what to do if an alarm goes off at work or during an exam in school, or what to do if an alarm is disrupting someone else’s sleep overnight. Further, focusing on communication and self-advocacy skills may assist in thinking through whether to share data, with whom, and what the ‘ground rules’ and support preferences are for the person-sharing data. Evidence demonstrates that sharing data can be associated with a range of benefits such as collaborative diabetes management, prevention of severe hypoglycemia, and improved A1c (73). A pilot telehealth program involving older adults with T1D sharing data with a trusted care partner was found to be feasible and led to improved communication and peace of mind around diabetes (74). In addition, greater use of optional alert and notification functions (e.g. setting a high alert) has been linked to more optimal diabetes management and increased time-in-range (75, 76). In the large retrospective study of CGM use, while almost all (96–98%) CGM users with T1D enabled low, high, and urgent low alarms, fewer customized low (60%) and high (74%) thresholds (70). Therefore, to promote the optimal use of diabetes devices, tailored coaching and counseling may be effective for encouraging the use of some beneficial technology features within one’s own personal preferences for management within social settings.
Another important approach to addressing social-related concerns is through continuing advances in the design and functionality of diabetes devices. For example, diabetes technology that integrates with everyday smartphones and smartwatches is easier to engage with in social settings than a separate medical device. Further user-centered design approaches that engage device users in co-creating the design of devices and interfaces may assist with aligning with preferences to address social barriers (77). Increased visibility of diabetes devices, such as through representations in media, through more widespread use, and/or through connections with others with T1D who use devices may also help normalize the use of this technology which may then help individual users feel more comfortable adopting it with fewer concerns about standing out (78, 79).
Practical challenges
Existing insulin pumps and CGM models all require attaching a device to the body, an experience that can be invasive both internally through the subcutaneous placement of a pump cannula or CGM sensor and externally through the physical and visible protrusion of a foreign object on the body. This reality comes with common associated barriers and hassles that many experience. A large T1DX device barriers survey found that issues related to wearing devices were most commonly endorsed after cost and insurance-related barriers (16). Specifically, 47% of survey respondents, who tended to be younger adults, said ‘hassle of wearing devices all the time’ got in the way of using devices, and 35% endorsed ‘do not like having diabetes devices on my body’ (16). The follow-up T1DX survey study with adolescents with T1D similarly found that wear-related issues were most common (59%) (18). While these data were collected prior to the arrival of the newest devices and systems, some constant features remain such as the need to use infusion sets for most insulin pumps and the need to have a CGM sensor adhered to the body. Some have pointed out that body image concerns may further impede the use of devices that must be worn on the body (30, 31). Qualitative studies have expanded upon the understanding of barriers and hassles associated with wearing devices on the body. For young children, challenges include painful insertion and having enough bodily real estate to place two devices on smaller bodies (24). Older adults and those with different physical abilities may experience different practical challenges in their use of diabetes devices; for example, arthritis or other conditions that limit or slow hand movements may make it difficult to use and hold small devices, while retinopathy and/or decreased visual abilities may affect how someone is able to view device interfaces (43).
In addition to the more consistent challenges of tolerating a device on the body, technology also imposes unexpected challenges on users. Diabetes devices are intended to be worn constantly, meaning they must go through the same activities and situations as the people who wear them. This may lead to issues with keeping the device on the body and working effectively (e.g. knocking a device off the body during sports). Technology is not perfect and can malfunction or require troubleshooting in real time, which can create stress for device users who rely on technology to help manage T1D (80). A recent survey of CGM users found that the majority experience problems with insertion (63.5%) or a device falling off (61%) (81). These experiences can lead to gaps in device use while waiting for replacement supplies from the device company, which may have negative impacts on diabetes management and overall health (81).
With devices worn on the body for long periods of time, dermatological reactions (including allergic contact dermatitis) remain significant concerns that are getting increased attention in the literature (82, 83, 84, 85, 86). Reactions have been noted with the use of adhesives in sensors and insulin infusion sets (IIS) as well as IIS catheters (87). Among many different substances and materials used in adhesives that have been linked with potential skin reactions, isobornyl acrylate has been identified as one such substance in CGM and insulin pump adhesives that can lead to allergic contact dermatitis (88). These types of skin reactions may dissuade someone from continuing to use a device due to discomfort, pain, and the frustration that comes with continued hassles of wear (89). One pediatric study found that despite the widespread experience of dermatological issues, skin-related quality of life impairments were infrequently endorsed (86). Still, someone who has experienced severe skin reactions in the past with one device may be less likely to be willing to try a different device in the future.
Device onboarding support, which is recommended by the American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care (90), is important to provide new device users with the education and troubleshooting skills to incorporate diabetes technology into their daily lives (91, 91, 92, 98; https://www.dexcom.com/training-videos). In particular, support from a certified diabetes care and education specialist (CDCES) may be beneficial for working through some of the common practical and physical barriers that device users experience. Certified diabetes care and education specialists are recommended to have competency in optimal device use including placement, insertion techniques, and troubleshooting, as well as being able to support individualized decision-making for each person with T1D (94). Receiving ongoing support for device use can also help with addressing potential skin reactions. One approach described to mitigate dermatological reactions, and subsequent burden, is to use a hydrocolloid or silicone-based plate between the skin and the device to provide a protective barrier; however, it should be noted that the need to obtain these barriers requires additional cost of supplies (88). In the longer term, future advances in diabetes devices will likely aim to minimize the daily hassles and burdens associated with wearing and using devices (e.g. through smaller size, longer wear time, and fewer separate devices to carry). Ideally, devices may be designed with users of all ages and abilities in mind to ease the initial learning curve and support ongoing use (43, 95). At each stage in decision-making about device adoption and continued use, it can be helpful to frame the hassle/burden of wearing devices on the body within a larger context of the pros and cons of diabetes devices in one’s life. This framing provides each person the opportunity to make their own decision about what hassles and tradeoffs they are willing to experience to be able to receive the benefits (96).
Summary
As diabetes technology continues to improve and advance, greater benefits can be experienced by people with T1D. However, it is important to contextualize these benefits within the device user’s lived experience with wearable devices (CGMs, insulin pumps, AID). Users may experience emotional, social and practical burdens, and hassles that may impede uptake, sustained use, and optimal use over time. We propose that emotional, social, and practical challenges associated with device use evoke strong emotional and/or cognitive reactions in users, which can affect their motivation, engagement, and decision to use diabetes technologies (Fig. 1). Without attention to these areas, device discontinuation is a risk (21). Attention to emotional distress, tailored education and skill-building for problem-solving and troubleshooting, and support for integrating device use into one’s life and social context should be critical components of programs to promote sustained and optimal use of diabetes devices over time (Fig. 2). Importantly, clinical support that is centered on the needs, preferences, and personal priorities of the person with T1D will ideally aid each person in choosing the right device(s), or not, to fit their life while maximizing benefits and minimizing burden. Given that diabetes devices must be worn on the body and interacted with daily, choosing whether and which one(s) to use is highly personal. Person-centered suggestions and decision-making will also support sustained use over time.
Negative cycle in which emotional reactions and experiences with devices may contribute to less optimal use and increased frustration and distress.
Citation: Endocrine Connections 12, 10; 10.1530/EC-23-0193
Example strategies to support each phase from diabetes device uptake to optimal use.
Citation: Endocrine Connections 12, 10; 10.1530/EC-23-0193
Declaration of interest
MLT and PVC report no declarations.
Funding
MLT is supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (K23DK119470). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
References
- 1↑
Forlenza GP, Ekhlaspour L, Breton M, Maahs DM, Wadwa RP, DeBoer M, Messer LH, Town M, Pinnata J, Kruse G, et al.Successful at-home use of the tandem control-IQ artificial pancreas system in young children during a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2019 21 159–169. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0011)
- 2
Brown SA, Forlenza GP, Bode BW, Pinsker JE, Levy CJ, Criego AB, Hansen DW, Hirsch IB, Carlson AL, Bergenstal RM, et al.Multicenter trial of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system with customizable glycemic targets in pediatric and adult participants with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2021 44 1630–1640. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-0172)
- 3↑
Bergenstal RM, Nimri R, Beck RW, Criego A, Laffel L, Schatz D, Battelino T, Danne T, Weinzimer SA, Sibayan J, et al.A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Lancet 2021 397 208–219. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(2032514-9)
- 4↑
Da Silva J, Lepore G, Battelino T, Arrieta A, Castañeda J, Grosman B, Shin J, & Cohen O. Real-world Performance of the MiniMed™ 780G System: First Report of Outcomes from 4120 Users. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 24 113–119. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0203)
- 5↑
Breton MD, & Kovatchev BP. One year real-world use of the Control-IQ advanced hybrid closed-loop technology. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 23 601–608. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0097)
- 6↑
Sherr JL, Buckingham BA, Forlenza GP, Galderisi A, Ekhlaspour L, Wadwa RP, Carria L, Hsu L, Berget C, Peyser TA, et al.Safety and performance of the Omnipod hybrid closed-loop system in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes over 5 days under free-living conditions. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2020 22 174–184. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0286)
- 7↑
Buckingham BA, Forlenza GP, Criego AB, Hansen DW, Bode BW, Brown SA, MacLeish SA, Pinsker JE, DeSalvo DJ, & Sherr JL. Safety evaluation of the Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery system over three months of use in children with Type 1 diabetes. Journal of the Endocrine Society 2021 5(Supplement_1) A454. (https://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvab048.928)
- 8↑
DeSalvo DJ, Noor N, Xie C, Corathers SD, Majidi S, McDonough RJ, Polsky S, Izquierdo R, Rioles N, Weinstock R, et al.Patient demographics and clinical outcomes among Type 1 diabetes patients using continuous glucose monitors: data from T1D exchange real-world observational study. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2023 17 322–328. (https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968211049783)
- 9↑
Cardona-Hernandez R, Schwandt A, Alkandari H, Bratke H, Chobot A, Coles N, Corathers S, Goksen D, Goss P, Imane Z, et al.Glycemic outcome associated with insulin pump and glucose sensor use in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Data from the international pediatric registry SWEET. Diabetes Care 2021 44 1176–1184. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-1674)
- 10↑
Karges B, Tittel SR, Bey A, Freiberg C, Klinkert C, Kordonouri O, Thiele-Schmitz S, Schröder C, Steigleder-Schweiger C, & Holl RW. Continuous glucose monitoring versus blood glucose monitoring for risk of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes: a population-based study. Lancet. Diabetes and Endocrinology 2023 11 314–323. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(2300061-X)
- 11↑
Tauschmann M, Hermann JM, Freiberg C, Papsch M, Thon A, Heidtmann B, Placzeck K, Agena D, Kapellen TM, Schenk B, et al.Reduction in diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia in pediatric type 1 diabetes during the first year of continuous glucose monitoring: a multicenter analysis of 3,553 subjects from the DPV registry. Diabetes Care 2020 43 e40–e42. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-1358)
- 12↑
Cobry EC, Hamburger E, & Jaser SS. Impact of the hybrid closed-loop system on sleep and quality of life in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2020 22 794–800. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0057)
- 13↑
Cobry EC, Kanapka LG, Cengiz E, Carria L, Ekhlaspour L, Buckingham BA, Hood KK, Hsu LJ, Messer LH, Schoelwer MJ, et al.Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in parents and children with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop control. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 23 401–409. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0532)
- 14↑
Musolino G, Dovc K, Boughton CK, Tauschmann M, Allen JM, Nagl K, Fritsch M, Yong J, Metcalfe E, Schaeffer D, et al.Reduced burden of diabetes and improved quality of life: experiences from unrestricted day‐and‐night hybrid closed‐loop use in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatric Diabetes 2019 20 794–799. (https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12872)
- 15↑
Kubilay E, Trawley S, Ward GM, Fourlanos S, Grills CA, Lee MH, MacIsaac RJ, O'Neal DN, O'Regan NA, Sundararajan V, et al.Lived experience of older adults with type 1 diabetes using closed‐loop automated insulin delivery in a randomised trial. Diabetic Medicine 2023 40 e15020. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15020)
- 16↑
Tanenbaum ML, Hanes SJ, Miller KM, Naranjo D, Bensen R, & Hood KK. Diabetes device use in adults with Type 1 diabetes: barriers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care 2017 40 181–187. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-1536)
- 17↑
Messer LH, Cook PF, Tanenbaum ML, Hanes S, Driscoll KA, & Hood KK. CGM benefits and burdens: two brief measures of continuous glucose monitoring. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2019 13 1135–1141. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296819832909)
- 18↑
Messer LH, Tanenbaum ML, Cook PF, Wong JJ, Hanes SJ, Driscoll KA, & Hood KK. Cost, hassle, and on-body experience: barriers to diabetes device use in adolescents and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2020 22 760–767. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0509)
- 19↑
Ritholz MD, Atakov‐Castillo A, Beste M, Beverly EA, Leighton A, Weinger K, & Wolpert H. Psychosocial factors associated with use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetic Medicine 2010 27 1060–1065. (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03061.x)
- 20↑
Messer LH, Johnson R, Driscoll KA, & Jones J. Best friend or spy: a qualitative meta‐synthesis on the impact of continuous glucose monitoring on life with type 1 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine 2018 35 409–418. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13568)
- 21↑
Messer LH, Berget C, Vigers T, Pyle L, Geno C, Wadwa RP, Driscoll KA, & Forlenza GP. Real world hybrid closed‐loop discontinuation: predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months. Pediatric Diabetes 2020 21 319–327. (https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12971)
- 22↑
Borges U, & Kubiak T. Continuous glucose monitoring in Type 1 diabetes human factors and usage. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2016 10 633–639. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816634736)
- 23↑
Lawton J, Blackburn M, Allen J, Campbell F, Elleri D, Leelarathna L, Rankin D, Tauschmann M, Thabit H, & Hovorka R. Patients’ and caregivers’ experiences of using continuous glucose monitoring to support diabetes self-management: qualitative study. BMC Endocrine Disorders 2018 18 12. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-018-0239-1)
- 24↑
Hilliard ME, Levy W, Anderson BJ, Whitehouse AL, Commissariat PV, Harrington KR, Laffel LM, Miller KM, Van Name M, & Tamborlane WV. Benefits and barriers of continuous glucose monitoring in young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2019 21 493–498. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0142)
- 25↑
Commissariat PV, Roethke LC, Finnegan JL, Guo Z, Volkening LK, Butler DA, Dassau E, Weinzimer SA, & Laffel LM. Youth and parent preferences for an ideal AP system: it is all about reducing burden. Pediatric Diabetes 2021 22 1063–1070. (https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.13252)
- 26↑
Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Thabit H, Evans ML, Amiel S, Heller S, Young A, Hovorka R, & Consortium A. Psychosocial aspects of closed‐and open‐loop insulin delivery: closing the loop in adults with type 1 diabetes in the home setting. Diabetic Medicine 2015 32 601–608. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.12706)
- 27↑
Pickup JC, Holloway MF, & Samsi K. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a qualitative framework analysis of patient narratives. Diabetes Care 2015 38 544–550. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc14-1855)
- 28↑
Faulds ER, Grey M, Tubbs‐Cooley H, Hoffman RP, Militello LK, Tan A, & Happ MB. Expect the unexpected: adolescent and pre‐teens' experience of diabetes technology self‐management. Pediatric Diabetes 2021 22 1051–1062. (https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.13249)
- 29↑
Shivers JP, Mackowiak L, Anhalt H, & Zisser H. “Turn it off!”: diabetes device alarm fatigue considerations for the present and the future. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2013 7 789–794. (https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700324)
- 30↑
Elleri D. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in adolescents. Glucose Sensor Use in Children and Adolescents: A Practical Guide 2020 57–62. (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42806-8_6)
- 31↑
Kubiak T, Mann CG, Barnard KC, & Heinemann L. Psychosocial aspects of continuous glucose monitoring connecting to the patients’ experience. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2016 10 859–863. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816651450)
- 32↑
Desrochers HR, Schultz AT, & Laffel LM. Use of diabetes technology in children: role of structured education for young people with diabetes and families. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America 2020 49 19–35. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecl.2019.11.001)
- 33↑
Naranjo D, Suttiratana SC, Iturralde E, Barnard KD, Weissberg-Benchell J, Laffel L, & Hood KK. What end users and stakeholders want from automated insulin delivery systems. Diabetes Care 2017 40 1453–1461. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-0400)
- 34↑
Iturralde E, Tanenbaum ML, Hanes SJ, Suttiratana SC, Ambrosino JM, Ly TT, Maahs DM, Naranjo D, Walders-Abramson N, Weinzimer SA, et al.Expectations and attitudes of individuals with Type 1 diabetes after using a hybrid closed loop system. Diabetes Educator 2017 43 223–232. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721717697244)
- 35↑
Messer LH. Why expectations will determine the future of artificial pancreas. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2018 20(Supplement 2) S265–S268. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0116)
- 36↑
Vesco AT, Jedraszko AM, Garza KP, & Weissberg-Benchell J. Continuous glucose monitoring associated with less diabetes-specific emotional distress and lower A1c among adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2018 12 792–799. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818766381)
- 37↑
Oldham V, Mumford B, Lee D, Jones J, & Das G. Impact of insulin pump therapy on key parameters of diabetes management and diabetes related emotional distress in the first 12 months. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2020 166 108281. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108281)
- 38↑
Gilbert TR, Noar A, Blalock O, & Polonsky WH. Change in hemoglobin A1c and quality of life with real-time continuous glucose monitoring use by people with insulin-treated diabetes in the landmark study. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 23(Supplement 1) S35–S39. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0666)
- 39↑
Murata T, Kuroda A, Matsuhisa M, Toyoda M, Kimura M, Hirota Y, Kato K, Sawaki H, Tone A, Kawashima S, et al.Predictive factors of the adherence to real-time continuous glucose monitoring sensors: a prospective observational study (PARCS STUDY). Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2021 15 1084–1092. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296820939204)
- 40↑
Naranjo D, Tanenbaum ML, Iturralde E, & Hood KK. Diabetes technology: uptake, outcomes, barriers, and the intersection with distress. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2016 10 852–858. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816650900)
- 41↑
Ali N, El Hamdaoui S, Nefs G, Walburgh Schmidt JWJ, Tack CJ, & de Galan BE. High diabetes‐specific distress among adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia despite widespread use of sensor technology. Diabetic Medicine 2023 e15167. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15167)
- 42↑
Huhn F, Lange K, Jördening M, & Ernst G. Real-world use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems among adolescents and young adults with Type 1 diabetes: reduced burden, but little interest in data analysis. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2023. (https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221081216)
- 43↑
Allen NA, & Litchman ML. Using diabetes technology in older adults. Diabetes Digital Health 2020 131–143. (https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-81748)
- 44↑
Wentzell K, Vessey JA, & Laffel LMB. How do the challenges of emerging adulthood inform our understanding of diabetes distress? An integrative review. Current Diabetes Reports 2020 20 21. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-020-01301-3)
- 45↑
Wentzell K, Vitale R, & Laffel L. Diabetes distress in emerging adulthood: content validity of the problem areas in diabetes—emerging adult version (PAID-EA) using qualitative analysis. Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care 2022 48 336–348. (https://doi.org/10.1177/26350106221110817)
- 46↑
Fagherazzi G. Technologies will not make diabetes disappear: how to integrate the concept of diabetes distress into care. Diabetes Epidemiology and Management 2023 11 100140. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deman.2023.100140)
- 47↑
Patel MR, Zhang G, Heisler M, Song PXK, Piette JD, Shi X, Choe HM, Smith A, & Resnicow K. Measurement and validation of the comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) in a population with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2022 45 2535–2543. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-0494)
- 48↑
Forlenza GP, Messer LH, Berget C, Wadwa RP, & Driscoll KA. Biopsychosocial factors associated with satisfaction and sustained use of artificial pancreas technology and its components: a call to the technology field. Current Diabetes Reports 2018 18 114. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-018-1078-1)
- 49↑
Crespo-Ramos G, Cumba-Avilés E, & Quiles-Jiménez M. “They called me a terrorist”: social and internalized stigma in Latino youth with type 1 diabetes. Health Psychology Report 2018 6 307–320. (https://doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2018.80004)
- 50↑
Christiansen CH. Defining lives: occupation as identity: an essay on competence, coherence, and the creation of meaning (Eleanor Clarke Slagle Lecture) American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1999 53 547–558. (https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.53.6.547)
- 51↑
Oyserman D, Elmore K & & Smith SG Self, self-concept, and identity Handbook of self and identity 2012 69–104.
- 52↑
Commissariat PV, Kenowitz JR, Trast J, Heptulla RA, & Gonzalez JS. Developing a personal and social identity with type 1 diabetes during adolescence: a hypothesis generative study. Qualitative Health Research 2016 26 672–684. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316628835)
- 53↑
Oris L, Rassart J, Prikken S, Verschueren M, Goubert L, Moons P, Berg CA, Weets I, & Luyckx K. Illness identity in adolescents and emerging adults with type 1 diabetes: introducing the illness identity questionnaire. Diabetes Care 2016 39 757–763. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-2559)
- 54↑
Commissariat PV, Laffel LM, & Gonzalez JS. Identity and treatment adherence in predominantly ethnic minority teens and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Pediatric Diabetes 2020 21 53–60. (https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12932)
- 55↑
Commissariat PV, Volkening LK, Weinzimer SA, Dassau E, & Laffel LM. Assessing incorporation of type 1 diabetes into identity: validation of the accepting diabetes and personal treatment (ADAPT) survey in teens and young adults. Canadian Journal of Diabetes 2023 47 66–72. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2022.08.007)
- 56↑
Tanenbaum ML, Messer LH, Wu CA, Basina M, Buckingham BA, Hessler D, Mulvaney SA, Maahs DM, & Hood KK. Help when you need it: perspectives of adults with T1D on the support and training they would have wanted when starting CGM. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2021 180 109048. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2021.109048)
- 57↑
Tanenbaum ML, Ngo J, Hanes SJ, Basina M, Buckingham BA, Hessler D, Maahs DM, Mulvaney S, & Hood KK. ONBOARD: a feasibility study of a telehealth-based continuous glucose monitoring adoption intervention for adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 23 818–827. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0198)
- 58↑
Strategies to Enhance New CGM Use in Early Childhood (SENCE) Study Group, Kanapka L, , DeSalvo D, , Hilliard M, , Laffel L, & Tamborlane W. A randomized clinical trial assessing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use with standardized education with or without a family behavioral intervention compared with fingerstick blood glucose monitoring in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2021 44 464–472. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-1060)
- 59↑
Gonder-Frederick L, Shepard J, & Peterson N. Closed-loop glucose control: psychological and behavioral considerations. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2011 5 1387–1395. (https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681100500610)
- 60↑
Quintal A, Messier V, Rabasa‐Lhoret R, & Racine E. A qualitative study exploring the expectations of people living with type 1 diabetes regarding prospective use of a hybrid closed‐loop system. Diabetic Medicine 2020 37 1832–1840. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14309)
- 61↑
Agarwal S, Crespo-Ramos G, Long JA, & Miller VA. “I didn't really have a choice”: qualitative analysis of racial-ethnic disparities in diabetes technology use among young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 23 616–622. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0075)
- 62↑
Miller VA, Xiao R, Slick N, Feudtner C, & Willi SM. Youth involvement in the decision to start CGM predicts subsequent CGM use. Diabetes Care 2020 43 2355–2361. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-0348)
- 63↑
Farrington C. Psychosocial impacts of hybrid closed‐loop systems in the management of diabetes: a review. Diabetic Medicine 2018 35 436–449. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13567)
- 64↑
Young-Hyman D, De Groot M, Hill-Briggs F, Gonzalez JS, Hood K, & Peyrot M. Psychosocial care for people with diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2016 39 2126–2140. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2053)
- 65↑
Tanenbaum ML, Adams RN, Iturralde E, Hanes SJ, Barley RC, Naranjo D, & Hood KK. From wary wearers to d-embracers: personas of readiness to use diabetes devices. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2018 12 1101–1107. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818793756)
- 66↑
Ceylan C, & Altay N. Social anxiety levels and associated factors among adolescents with type 1 diabetes compared with healthy peers. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 2017 22 e12172. (https://doi.org/10.1111/jspn.12172)
- 67↑
Hanna KM, Weaver MT, Stump TE, Fortenberry JD, & DiMeglio LA. The relationship of worry about hypoglycemia with diabetes-specific and typical youth behavior among emerging adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Educator 2014 40 533–542. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721714528997)
- 68↑
Jeong YM, Quinn L, Kim N, & Martyn-Nemeth P. Health-related stigma in young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services 2018 56 44–51. (https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20180503-01)
- 69↑
Shah LL, Ersig AL, & Paik A. Social network factors and anxiety among adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Journal of Family Nursing 2019 25 395–418. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840719863719)
- 70↑
Dowd R, Jepson LH, Green CR, Norman GJ, Thomas R, & Leone K. Glycemic outcomes and feature set engagement among real-time continuous glucose monitoring users with Type 1 or non–insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes: retrospective analysis of real-world data. JMIR Diabetes 2023 8 e43991. (https://doi.org/10.2196/43991)
- 71↑
Lawton J, Hart RI, Kimbell B, Allen JM, Besser REJ, Boughton C, Elleri D, Fuchs J, Ghatak A, Randell T, et al.Data sharing while using a closed-loop system: qualitative study of adolescents' and parents' experiences and views. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 23 500–507. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0637)
- 72↑
Fremont ER, & Miller VA. Perspectives on remote glucose monitoring in youth with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2021 46 1276–1285. (https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsab068)
- 73↑
Polonsky WH, & Fortmann AL. Impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring data sharing on quality of life and health outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 23 195–202. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0466)
- 74↑
Allen NA, Bristol A, Grigorian EG, Iacob E, Berg CA, & Litchman ML. SHARE plus: delivering a telehealth CGM Data-sharing intervention to older adults and their care partners. Diabetes Spectrum 2022 35 16–25. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dsi21-0016)
- 75↑
Akturk HK, Dowd R, Shankar K, & Derdzinski M. Real-world evidence and glycemic improvement using Dexcom G6 features. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2021 23(Supplement1) S21–S26. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0654)
- 76↑
Acciaroli G, Parkin CG, Thomas R, Layne J, Norman GJ, & Leone K. G6 continuous glucose monitoring system feature use and its associations with glycaemia in Europe. Diabetic Medicine 2023 40 e15093. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15093)
- 77↑
Pillalamarri SS, Huyett LM, & Abdel-Malek A. Novel Bluetooth-enabled tubeless insulin pump: a user experience design approach for a connected digital diabetes management platform. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2018 12 1132–1142. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818804802)
- 78↑
Fisher L, Polonsky WH, & Hessler D. Addressing diabetes distress in clinical care: a practical guide. Diabetic Medicine 2019 36 803–812. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13967)
- 79↑
Tenderich A, Tenderich B, Barton T, & Richards SE. What are PWDs (people with diabetes) Doing Online? A Netnographic Analysis. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2019 13 187–197. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818813192)
- 80↑
Tanenbaum ML, Zaharieva DP, Addala A, Ngo J, Prahalad P, Leverenz B, New C, Maahs DM, & Hood KK. ‘I was ready for it at the beginning’: parent experiences with early introduction of continuous glucose monitoring following their child's Type 1 diabetes diagnosis. Diabetic Medicine 2021 38 e14567. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14567)
- 81↑
Markov AM, Krutilova P, Cedeno AE, McGill JB, & McKee AM. Interruption of CGM: frequency and adverse consequences. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2023 19322968231156572. (https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968231156572)
- 82↑
Messer LH, Berget C, Beatson C, Polsky S, & Forlenza GP. Preserving skin integrity with chronic device use in diabetes. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2018 20(Supplement 2) S254–S264. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0080)
- 83↑
Pleus S, Ulbrich S, Zschornack E, Kamann S, Haug C, & Freckmann G. Documentation of skin-related issues associated with continuous glucose monitoring use in the scientific literature. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2019 21 538–545. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0171)
- 84↑
Cameli N, Silvestri M, Mariano M, Messina C, Nisticò SP, & Cristaudo A. Allergic contact dermatitis, an important skin reaction in diabetes device users: a systematic review. Dermatitis: Contact, Atopic, Occupational, Drug 2022 33 110–115. (https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000861)
- 85↑
Lombardo F, Salzano G, Crisafulli G, Panasiti I, Alibrandi A, Messina MF, Pajno GB, Caminiti L, & Passanisi S. Allergic contact dermatitis in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: an emerging issue. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2020 162 108089. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108089)
- 86↑
Burgmann J, Biester T, Grothaus J, Kordonouri O, & Ott H. Pediatric diabetes and skin disease (PeDiSkin): a cross‐sectional study in 369 children, adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Pediatric Diabetes 2020 21 1556–1565. (https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.13130)
- 87↑
Heinemann L, & Kamann S. Adhesives used for diabetes medical devices: a neglected risk with serious consequences? Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2016 10 1211–1215. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816662949)
- 88↑
Oppel E, Högg C, Summer B, Ruëff F, Reichl FX, & Kamann S. Isobornyl acrylate contained in the insulin patch pump OmniPod as the cause of severe allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2018 79 178–180. (https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13017)
- 89↑
Christensen MO, Berg AK, Rytter K, Hommel E, Thyssen JP, Svensson J, & Nørgaard K. Skin problems due to treatment with technology are associated with increased disease burden among adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2019 21 215–221. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0007)
- 90↑
ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, Collins BS, Hilliard ME, Isaacs D, Johnson EL, et al.Diabetes technology: standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care 2023 46(Supplement 1) S111–S127. (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-S007)
- 91↑
Yoo JH, Kim G, Lee HJ, Sim KH, Jin SM, & Kim JH. Effect of structured individualized education on continuous glucose monitoring use in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2022 184 109209. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109209)
- 92↑
Lin T, Manfredo JA, Illesca N, Abiola K, Hwang N, Salsberg S, Akhtar Y, Mathioudakis N, Brown EA, & Wolf RM. Improving continuous glucose monitoring uptake in underserved youth with Type 1 diabetes: the Impact study. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2023 25 13–19. (https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2022.0347)
- 93↑
Gehr B, Holder M, Kulzer B, Lange K, Liebl A, Sahm C, von Sengbusch S, Schlüter S, Siegmund T, Thurm U, et al.SPECTRUM. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2017 11 284–289. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816661735)
- 94↑
Patil SP, Albanese-O’Neill A, Yehl K, Seley JJ, & Hughes AS. Professional competencies for diabetes technology use in the care setting. Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care 2022 48 437–445. (https://doi.org/10.1177/26350106221120889)
- 95↑
Psavko S, Katz N, Mirchi T, & Green CR. Usability and teachability of continuous glucose monitoring devices in older adults and diabetes educators: task analysis and ease-of-use survey. JMIR Human Factors 2022 9 e42057. (https://doi.org/10.2196/42057)
- 96↑
Weissberg‐Benchell J, Shapiro JB, Hood K, Laffel LM, Naranjo D, Miller K, & Barnard K. Assessing patient‐reported outcomes for automated insulin delivery systems: the psychometric properties of the Inspire measures. Diabetic Medicine 2019 36 644–652. (https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13930)
