Adoption Barriers for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Their Potential Reduction With a Fully Implanted System: Results From Patient Preference Surveys.

Robert Engler, Timothy L Routh, Joseph Y Lucisano
Author Information
  1. Robert Engler: University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, CA.
  2. Timothy L Routh: GlySens, Inc., San Diego, CA.
  3. Joseph Y Lucisano: GlySens, Inc., San Diego, CA.

Abstract

A patient-centered approach to device design can provide important advantages in optimizing diabetes care technology for broadened adoption and improved adherence. Results from two surveys of people with diabetes and the parents of children with diabetes ( = 1,348) regarding continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices reveal the importance of the concept of "user burden" in patients' and caregivers' evaluations of the acceptability of available devices. Survey respondents' strongly favorable reactions to a proposed 1-year, fully implanted CGM device with no skin-attached components further confirm that minimizing system obtrusiveness will likely be of significant value in reducing hurdles to CGM device use and adherence.

References

  1. Diabetes Care. 2005 May;28(5):1231-9 [PMID: 15855600]
  2. Diabetes Care. 2015 Jun;38(6):971-8 [PMID: 25998289]
  3. Diabetes Care. 2016 Dec;39(12 ):2126-2140 [PMID: 27879358]
  4. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Mar;9(2):320-30 [PMID: 25555391]
  5. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 2;359(14):1464-76 [PMID: 18779236]
  6. Diabet Med. 2015 May;32(5):609-17 [PMID: 25661981]
  7. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jan;33(1):17-22 [PMID: 19837791]
  8. Diabetes Care. 2009 Nov;32(11):1947-53 [PMID: 19675206]
  9. Diabetes Care. 2014 Oct;37(10):2702-9 [PMID: 25011947]
  10. Clin Diabetes. 2017 Jan;35(1):60-65 [PMID: 28144048]
  11. Am Psychol. 2016 Oct;71(7):577-589 [PMID: 27690486]
  12. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):9-16 [PMID: 24356592]
  13. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Sep 09;10 (2):383-8 [PMID: 26353781]
  14. Diabetes Care. 2011 Apr;34(4):795-800 [PMID: 21335621]
  15. Diabetes Care. 2017 Feb;40(2):181-187 [PMID: 27899489]
  16. Diabetes Care. 2016 Jun;39(6):e81-2 [PMID: 27208319]
  17. Diabetes Care. 2016 May;39(5):686-93 [PMID: 26861924]
  18. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016 Feb;18 Suppl 2:S3-S13 [PMID: 26784127]
  19. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016 Mar;18(3):115-7 [PMID: 26983025]
  20. Diabetologia. 2012 Dec;55(12):3155-62 [PMID: 22965294]
  21. N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 30;329(14 ):977-86 [PMID: 8366922]
  22. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016 Mar;18(3):127-35 [PMID: 26950530]
  23. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jun;33(6):1269-74 [PMID: 20332354]
  24. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013 May 01;7(3):789-94 [PMID: 23759412]
  25. J Med Econ. 2016;19(3):236-42 [PMID: 26510389]
  26. Diabetes Care. 2009 Aug;32(8):1378-83 [PMID: 19429875]
  27. Diabetologia. 2016 Sep;59(9):1795-805 [PMID: 27364997]
  28. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Oct;96(10):2968-79 [PMID: 21976745]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0devicediabetesCGMadherenceResultsdevicespatient-centeredapproachdesigncanprovideimportantadvantagesoptimizingcaretechnologybroadenedadoptionimprovedtwosurveyspeopleparentschildren=1348regardingcontinuousglucosemonitoringrevealimportanceconcept"userburden"patients'caregivers'evaluationsacceptabilityavailableSurveyrespondents'stronglyfavorablereactionsproposed1-yearfullyimplantedskin-attachedcomponentsconfirmminimizingsystemobtrusivenesswilllikelysignificantvaluereducinghurdlesuseAdoptionBarriersContinuousGlucoseMonitoringPotentialReductionFullyImplantedSystem:PatientPreferenceSurveys

Similar Articles

Cited By (39)