4.3 Article

Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring in adults and youths with Type 1 diabetes

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 1118-1122

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03368.x

关键词

adherence; continuous glucose monitors; Type 1 diabetes

资金

  1. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Inc. [22-2006-1107, 22-2006-1117, 22-2006-1112, 22-2006-1123, 01-2006-8031]
  2. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
  3. Medtronic MiniMed Inc
  4. Medtronic MiniMed Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To describe satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring in Type 1 diabetes; to correlate continuous glucose monitoring satisfaction scores with usage; and to identify common themes in perceived benefits and barriers of monitoring reported by adults, youths and the parents of youths in the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring trials. Methods The Continuous Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Scale questionnaire was completed after 6 months of monitoring. Participants also answered open-ended queries of positive and negative attributes of continuous glucose monitoring. Results More frequent monitoring was associated with higher satisfaction for adults (n = 224), youths (n = 208) and parents of youths (n = 192) (all P < 0.001) in both the 'benefits' and 'hassles' sub-scales of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Scale, but the greatest differences between the two groups involved scores on hassle items. Common barriers to monitoring use included insertion pain, system alarms and body issues; while common benefits included glucose trend data, opportunities to self-correct out-of-range glucose levels and to detect hypoglycaemia. Conclusions As frequent use of continuous glucose monitoring is associated with improved glycaemic control without increased hypoglycaemia it is important to overcome barriers, reinforce benefits and set realistic expectations for this technology in order to promote its more consistent and frequent use in individuals 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

4.3
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