OBJECTIVEDiabetes devices (insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors [CGMs]) are associated with benefits for glycemic control, yet uptake of these devices continues to be low. Some barriers to device uptake may be modifiable through psychosocial intervention, but little is known about which barriers and which patients to target.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe surveyed 1,503 adult T1D Exchange participants (mean age 35.3 [SD 14.8] years, mean diagnosis duration 20.4 [SD 12.5] years) to investigate barriers to device uptake, understand profiles of device users versus nonusers, and explore differences by age and sex. Scales used were the Diabetes Distress Scale, Technology Use Attitudes (General and Diabetes-Specific), and Barriers to Device Use and Reasons for Discontinuing Devices.RESULTSMost commonly endorsed modifiable barriers were related to the hassle of wearing devices (47%) and disliking devices on one’s body (35%). CGM users (37%) were older than nonusers (mean 38.3 vs. 33.5 years), had diabetes for longer (22.9 vs. 18.8 years), had more positive technology attitudes (22.6–26.0 vs. 21.4–24.8), and reported fewer barriers to using diabetes technology than nonusers (3.3 vs. 4.3). The youngest age-group (18–25 years) had the lowest CGM (26% vs. 40–48%) and insulin pump (64% vs. 69–77%) uptake, highest diabetes distress (2.2 vs. 1.8–2.1), and highest HbA1c levels (8.3% [67 mmol/mol] vs. 7.2–7.4% [55–57 mmol/mol]).CONCLUSIONSEfforts to increase device use need to target physical barriers to wearing devices. Because young adults had the lowest device uptake rates, highest distress, and highest HbA1c compared with older age-groups, they should be the focus of future interventions to increase device use.

OBJECTIVETo compare three interventions to reduce diabetes distress (DD) and improve self-management among non–clinically depressed adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn REDEEM, 392 adults with T2DM and DD were randomized to computer-assisted self-management (CASM), CASM plus DD-specific problem solving (CAPS), or a computer-administered minimal supportive intervention. Primary outcomes were Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) total, the Emotional Burden (EB) and Regimen Distress (RD) DDS subscales, and diet, exercise, and medication adherence.RESULTSSignificant and clinically meaningful reductions in DD (DDS, EB, and RD) and self-management behaviors occurred in all three conditions (P < 0.001), with no significant between-group differences. There was, however, a significant group × baseline distress interaction (P < 0.02), in which patients with high baseline RD in the CAPS condition displayed significantly larger RD reductions than those in the other two conditions. RD generated the most distress and displayed the greatest distress reduction as a result of intervention. The pace of DD reduction varied by patient age: older patients demonstrated significant reductions in DD early in the intervention, whereas younger adults displayed similar reductions later. Reductions in DD were accompanied by significant improvements in healthy eating, physical activity, and medication adherence, although not by change in HbA1c.CONCLUSIONSDD is malleable and highly responsive to intervention. Interventions that enhance self-management also reduce DD significantly, but DD-specific interventions may be necessary for patients with high initial levels of DD. Future research should identify the minimal, most cost-effective interventions to reduce DD and improve self-management.

No abstract

Purpose The first hybrid closed loop (HCL) system, which automates insulin delivery but requires user inputs, was approved for treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) by the US Food and Drug Administration in September 2016. The purpose of this study was to explore the benefits, expectations, and attitudes of individuals with T1D following a clinical trial of an HCL system. Methods Thirty-two individuals with T1D (17 adults, 15 adolescents) participated in focus groups after 4 to 5 days of system use. Content analysis generated themes regarding perceived benefits, hassles, and limitations. Results Some participants felt misled by terms such as "closed loop" and "artificial pancreas," which seemed to imply a more "hands-off" experience. Perceived benefits were improved glycemic control, anticipated reduction of long-term complications, better quality of life, and reduced mental burden of diabetes. Hassles and limitations included unexpected tasks for the user, difficulties wearing the system, concerns about controlling highs, and being reminded of diabetes. Conclusion Users are willing to accept some hassles and limitations if they also perceive health and quality-of-life benefits beyond current self-management. It is important for clinicians to provide a balanced view of positives and negatives to help manage expectations.

Hypoglycemia is a frequent occurrence in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. A variety of efforts have been made to standardize the definition of hypoglycemia and to define one of its most significant psychosocial consequences-fear of hypoglycemia (FOH). In addition to documenting the experience of FOH in children and adolescents type l diabetes and their parents, studies have investigate the relations between FOH and glycemic control and diabetes technology use. This review provides a summary of the recent FOH literature as it applies to pediatric type 1 diabetes.

IMPORTANCE There is a lack of agreement on what constitutes successful outcomes for the process of health care transition (HCT) among adolescent and young adults with special health care needs. OBJECTIVE To present HCT outcomes identified by a Delphi process with an interdisciplinary group of participants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A Delphi method involving 3 stages was deployed to refine a list of HCT outcomes. This 18-month study (from January 5, 2013, of stage 1 to July 3, 2014, of stage 3) included an initial literature search, expert interviews, and then 2 waves of a web-based survey. On this survey, 93 participants from outpatient, community-based, and primary care clinics rated the importance of the top HCT outcomes identified by the Delphi process. Analyses were performed from July 5, 2014, to December 5, 2014. EXPOSURES Health care transition outcomes of adolescents and young adults with special health care needs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Importance ratings of identified HCT outcomes rated on a Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (very important). RESULTS The 2 waves of surveys included 117 and 93 participants as the list of outcomes was refined. Transition outcomes were refined by the 3 waves of the Delphi process, with quality of life being the highest-rated outcome with broad agreement. The 10 final outcomes identified included individual outcomes (quality of life, understanding the characteristics of conditions and complications, knowledge of medication, self-management, adherence to medication, and understanding health insurance), health services outcomes (attending medical appointments, having a medical home, and avoidance of unnecessary hospitalization), and a social outcome (having a social network). Participants indicated that different outcomes were likely needed for individuals with cognitive disabilities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Quality of life is an important construct relevant to HCT. Future research should identify valid measures associated with each outcome and further explore the role that quality of life plays in the HCT process. Achieving consensus is a critical step toward the development of reliable and objective comparisons of HCT outcomes across clinical conditions and care delivery locations.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Loop Do-It-Yourself automated insulin delivery system. Research Design and Methods: A prospective real-world observational study was conducted, which included 558 adults and children (age range 1–71 years, mean HbA1c 6.8% ± 1.0%) who initiated Loop either on their own or with community-developed resources and provided data for 6 months. Results: Mean time-in-range 70–180 mg/dL (TIR) increased from 67% ± 16% at baseline (before starting Loop) to 73% ± 13% during the 6 months (mean change from baseline 6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.9%–7.4%; P < 0.001). TIR increased in both adults and children, across the full range of baseline HbA1c, and in participants with both high- and moderate-income levels. Median time <54 mg/dL was 0.40% at baseline and changed by −0.05% (95% CI −0.09% to −0.03%, P < 0.001). Mean HbA1c was 6.8% ± 1.0% at baseline and decreased to 6.5% ± 0.8% after 6 months (mean difference = −0.33%, 95% CI −0.40% to −0.26%, P < 0.001). The incidence rate of reported severe hypoglycemia events was 18.7 per 100 person-years, a reduction from the incidence rate of 181 per 100 person-years during the 3 months before the study. Among the 481 users providing Loop data at 6 months, median continuous glucose monitoring use was 96% (interquartile range [IQR] 91%–98%) and median time Loop modulating basal insulin was at least 83% (IQR 73%–88%). Conclusions: The Loop open source system can be initiated with community-developed resources and used safely and effectively by adults and children with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to rigorously explore psychosocial factors associated with automated insulin delivery systems among people living with type 1 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSAcross four sites in the U.S. and U.K., 284 participants completed structured interviews or focus groups on expectations, desired features, potential benefits, and perceived burdens of automated insulin delivery systems. Recorded audio files were transcribed and analyzed using NVivo.RESULTSThree themes were identified as critical for uptake of automated insulin delivery: considerations of trust and control, system features, and concerns and barriers to adoption. Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes primarily identified needs specific to their life stage and social contexts (e.g., school). Adults with type 1 diabetes, parents of youth with type 1 diabetes, and partners of adults with type 1 diabetes were most concerned about the accuracy, adaptability, and algorithm quality alongside expectations that systems stabilize glucose levels and reduce risk for long-term complications.CONCLUSIONSIncorporating stakeholder perspectives on use of automated insulin delivery systems will improve the adoption of devices, quality of life, and likelihood of optimal health. Efforts to build trust in systems, optimize user-system interactions, and provide clear guidance about device capabilities and limitations may help potential users achieve optimal glycemic outcomes.