4.3 Article

Exploring parental perspectives after commencement of flash glucose monitoring for type 1 diabetes in adolescents and young adults not meeting glycaemic targets: a qualitative study

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 657-664

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.14188

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Cure Kids
  2. Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Otago, Dunedin School of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To explore parental perspectives after flash glucose monitoring commencement in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes who were not meeting glycaemic targets. Methods Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted among parents of adolescents and young adults between the ages of 14 and 20 years (inclusive) with type 1 diabetes and not meeting glycaemic targets [HbA(1c) 81-130 mmol/mol (9.6-14.0%)] participating in a randomized controlled trial. Interviews were transcribed, then thematic analysis was performed to identify themes regarding parental experiences. Results Four key themes were found: flash glucose monitoring improved parental emotional well-being; flash glucose monitoring reduced diabetes-specific conflict within families; flash glucose monitoring facilitated the parental role in diabetes management; and sensor-related challenges, particularly sensors falling off, interfered with using flash glucose monitoring for diabetes management. The cost of self-funded sensors was the only barrier to continuing flash glucose monitoring that parents reported. Conclusions This study provides new insights into the potential benefits and challenges of flash glucose monitoring use, drawn from the perspective of parents of adolescents and young adults not meeting glycaemic targets. As parents are often key partners in obtaining or purchasing this technology, these findings can be used to further inform parental expectations of this technology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available