4.7 Article

Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Framework Analysis of Patient Narratives

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 544-550

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc14-1855

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medtronic
  2. Roche
  3. CeQur
  4. Cellnovo
  5. Eli Lilly
  6. Novo Nordisk
  7. Dexcom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVEThis study analyzed narratives about experiences of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSPeople with type 1 diabetes using CGM and caregivers completed an online survey. Questions included duration of CGM, frequency of sensor wear, funding, and a free narrative about experiences or views about CGM. We used qualitative framework analysis to analyze 100 responses; 50% of participants were aged 18 years.RESULTSMost participants (87%) used CGM with insulin pump therapy, 71% used sensors 75% of the time, and 66% received funding for CGM from the National Health Service. Four themes were identified: 1) metabolic control, 2) living with CGM (work and school, sleep, exercise, nutrition, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG]), 3) psychological issues and patient/caregiver attitudes, and 4) barriers to CGM use (technical issues, financial issues, attitudes of healthcare professionals toward CGM). Despite some hassles, experiences were overwhelmingly positive, with improved glycemic control, diet and exercise management, quality of life, and physical and psychological well-being, as well as reduced frequency of SMBG. Technical problems included sensor inaccuracy and unreliability, and alarm fatigue. The advantages of CGM used with an insulin pump with automatic suspension of insulin delivery during hypoglycemia were recorded by several participants, noting reduced hypoglycemia frequency and fear of nocturnal hypoglycemia.CONCLUSIONSPatient and caregiver narratives indicate that CGM is a valuable addition to diabetes care for many with type 1 diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据