4.4 Article

Psychosocial Correlates of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use in Youth and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Parents of Youth

期刊

DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 523-526

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/dia.2011.0201

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [T32 DK007260]
  2. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International
  3. Katherine Adler Astrove Youth Education Fund
  4. Maria Griffin Drury Pediatric Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemia with consistent use. Youth, however, are unlikely to use CGM consistently. We compared psychological characteristics of youth with type 1 diabetes, their parents, and adults with type 1 diabetes randomized to CGM or standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM). This study was an ancillary study, and participants completed the questionnaires at the 6-month visit of the main study. Subjects and Methods: Participants enrolled at a single site of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation CGM trial completed questionnaires and provided diabetes management data. Participants were randomized to the CGM or BGM group for 6 months. Results: Parents in both groups reported more fear of hypoglycemia than youth in the corresponding groups. CGM youth and parents reported more negative affect around BGM than those in the BGM group. CGM youth reported more trait anxiety than BGM youth, whereas CGM adults reported less state and trait anxiety than BGM adults. CGM parent-proxy report of depression was significantly higher than that reported by BGM parents. Conclusions: Youth, their parents, and adults report different psychological impacts of CGM use. In some groups and with some variables, CGM use was associated with a positive psychosocial impact, whereas in others CGM use was associated with a negative psychosocial impact. Future research should explore the psychological consequences of CGM use.

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

4.4
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