Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Barriers and Facilitators to Diabetes Device Adoption for People with Type 1 Diabetes

  • Psychosocial Aspects (J Pierce, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Diabetes Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Diabetes technology (insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery systems) has advanced significantly and provides benefits to the user. This article reviews the current barriers to diabetes device adoption and sustained use, and outlines the known and potential facilitators for increasing and sustaining device adoption.

Recent Findings

Barriers to diabetes device adoption continue to exist at the system-, provider-, and individual-level. Known facilitators to promote sustained adoption include consistent insurance coverage, support for providers and clinics, structured education and support for technology users, and device user access to support as needed (e.g., through online resources).

Summary

Systemic barriers to diabetes device adoption persist while growing evidence demonstrates the increasing benefits of newest devices and systems. There are ongoing efforts to develop evidence-based structured education programs to support device adoption and sustained use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, Clements MA, Rickels MR, DiMeglio LA, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):66–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Yeh H-C, Brown TT, Maruthur N, Ranasinghe P, Berger Z, Suh YD, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of methods of insulin delivery and glucose monitoring for diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(5):336–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 7. Diabetes technology: standards of medical care in diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Supplement_1):S97–S112.

  4. Maiorino MI, Signoriello S, Maio A, Chiodini P, Bellastella G, Scappaticcio L, et al. Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on metrics of glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(5):1146–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Galindo RJ, Parkin CG, Aleppo G, Carlson AL, Kruger DF, Levy CJ, et al. Whats wrong with this picture? A critical review of current centers for medicare & medicaid services coverage criteria for continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(9):652–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Thabit H, Prabhu JN, Mubita W, Fullwood C, Azmi S, Urwin A, et al. Use of factory-calibrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring improves time in target and HbA1c in a multiethnic cohort of adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: the MILLENNIALS study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(10):2537–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Teoh IH, Prabhu J, Mubita W, Azmi S, Urwin A, Doughty I, et al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring benefits glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes irrespective of insulin delivery modality: subanalysis of the MILLENNIAL Study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;16(1):252–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tumminia A, Crimi S, Sciacca L, Buscema M, Frittitta L, Squatrito S, et al. Efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control and glucose variability in type 1 diabetic patients treated with either insulin pumps or multiple insulin injection therapy: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2015;31(1):61–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hohendorff J, Gumprecht J, Mysliwiec M, Zozulinska-Ziolkiewicz D, Malecki MT. Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring data of Polish patients from real-life conditions: more scanning and better glycemic control compared to worldwide data. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(8):577–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Reddy M, Jugnee N, El Laboudi A, Spanudakis E, Anantharaja S, Oliver N. A randomized controlled pilot study of continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia. Diabet Med. 2018;35(4):483–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hásková A, Radovnická L, Petruželková L, Parkin CG, Grunberger G, Horová E, et al. Real-time CGM is superior to flash glucose monitoring for glucose control in type 1 diabetes: the CORRIDA randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(11):2744–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Polonsky WH, Fortmann AL. Impact of real-time CGM data sharing on quality of life in the caregivers of adults and children with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020;16(1):97–105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Tanenbaum ML, Zaharieva DP, Addala A, Ngo J, Prahalad P, Leverenz B, et al. ‘I was ready for it at the beginning’: parent experiences with early introduction of continuous glucose monitoring following their childs type 1 diabetes diagnosis. Diabet Med. 2021;38(8):e14567.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gilbert TR, Noar A, Blalock O, Polonsky WH. Change in hemoglobin A1c and quality of life with real-time continuous glucose monitoring use by people with insulin-treated diabetes in the landmark study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23(S1):S-35-S-9.

  15. Polonsky WH, Fortmann AL. Impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring data sharing on quality of life and health outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(3):195–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Da Silva J, Lepore G, Battelino T, Arrieta A, Castañeda J, Grosman B, et al. Real-world performance of the MiniMed™ 780G system: first report of outcomes from 4,120 users. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021(ja).

  17. Bergenstal RM, Nimri R, Beck RW, Criego A, Laffel L, Schatz D, et al. A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10270):208–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Forlenza GP, Ekhlaspour L, Breton M, Maahs DM, Wadwa RP, DeBoer M, et al. Successful at-home use of the tandem Control-IQ artificial pancreas system in young children during a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(4):159–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Breton MD, Kovatchev BP. One year real-world use of the Control-IQ advanced hybrid closed-loop technology. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(9):601–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Sherr JL, Buckingham BA, Forlenza GP, Galderisi A, Ekhlaspour L, Wadwa RP, et al. Safety and performance of the omnipod hybrid closed-loop system in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes over 5 days under free-living conditions. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(3):174–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Buckingham BA, Forlenza GP, Criego AB, Hansen DW, Bode BW, Brown SA, et al. Safety evaluation of the Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery system over three months of use in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). J Endocr Soc. 2021;5(Supplement_1):A454–A.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Musolino G, Dovc K, Boughton CK, Tauschmann M, Allen JM, Nagl K, et al. Reduced burden of diabetes and improved quality of life: experiences from unrestricted day-and-night hybrid closed-loop use in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019;20(6):794–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Abraham MB, de Bock M, Smith GJ, Dart J, Fairchild JM, King BR, et al. Effect of a hybrid closed-loop system on glycemic and psychosocial outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2021.

  24. Cobry EC, Kanapka LG, Cengiz E, Carria L, Ekhlaspour L, Buckingham BA, et al. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in parents and children with type 1 diabetes using closed-loop control. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(6):401–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cobry EC, Hamburger E, Jaser SS. Impact of the hybrid closed-loop system on sleep and quality of life in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(11):794–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanenbaum ML, Hanes SJ, Miller KM, Naranjo D, Bensen R, Hood KK. Diabetes device use in adults with type 1 diabetes: barriers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(2):181–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Messer LH, Tanenbaum ML, Cook PF, Wong JJ, Hanes SJ, Driscoll KA, et al. Cost, hassle, and on-body experience: Barriers to diabetes device use in adolescents and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(10):760–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Aleppo G, Parkin CG, Carlson A, Galindo R, Kruger D, Levy C, et al. Lost in Translation. A disconnect between the science and Medicare coverage criteria for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;(ja).

  29. Chen CW, Tinsley LJ, Volkening LK, Anderson BJ, Laffel LM. Observed characteristics associated with diabetes device use among teens with type 1 diabetes. Journal of diabetes science and technology. 2021;Online ahead of print.

  30. DeSalvo DJ, Noor N, Xie C, Corathers SD, Majidi S, McDonough RJ, et al. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes among type 1 diabetes patients using continuous glucose monitors: data from T1D exchange real-world observational study. Journal of diabetes science and technology. 2021;Online ahead of print.

  31. Everett EM, Wisk LE. Relationships between socioeconomic status, insurance coverage for diabetes technology and adverse health in patients with type 1 diabetes. Journal of diabetes science and technology. 2021;Online ahead of print.

  32. Walker AF, Hood KK, Gurka MJ, Filipp SL, Anez-Zabala C, Cuttriss N, et al. Barriers to technology use and endocrinology care for underserved communities with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2021.

  33. Lal RA, Basina M, Maahs DM, Hood K, Buckingham B, Wilson DM. One year clinical experience of the first commercial hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(12):2190–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Agarwal S, Schechter C, Gonzalez J, Long JA. Racial–ethnic disparities in diabetes technology use among young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(4):306–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ju Z, Piarulli A, Bielick L, Marschall S, Broiullard E, Steenkamp D. Advanced diabetes technology remains underutilized in underserved populations: early hybrid closed loop system experience at an academic safety net hospital. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021(ja).

  36. Agarwal S, Crespo-Ramos G, Long JA, Miller VA. “I didn’t really have a choice”: qualitative analysis of racial-ethnic disparities in diabetes technology use among young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021(ja).

  37. Lawton J, Kimbell B, Rankin D, Ashcroft NL, Varghese L, Allen JM, et al. Health professionals views about who would benefit from using a closed-loop system: a qualitative study. Diabet Med. 2020;37(6):1030–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Farrington C, Hovorka R, Murphy HR. Who should access closed-loop technology? A qualitative study of clinician attitudes in England. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(5):404–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Lawton J, Kirkham J, Rankin D, White DA, Elliott J, Jaap A, et al. Who gains clinical benefit from using insulin pump therapy? A qualitative study of the perceptions and views of health professionals involved in the Relative Effectiveness of Pumps Over MDI and Structured Education (REPOSE) trial. Diabet Med. 2016;33(2):243–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Farrington C, Murphy H, Hovorka R. A qualitative study of clinician attitudes towards closed-loop systems in mainstream diabetes care in England. Diabet Med. 2020;37(6):1023–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Tanenbaum ML, Adams RN, Hanes SJ, Barley RC, Miller KM, Mulvaney SA, et al. Optimal use of diabetes devices: clinician perspectives on barriers and adherence to device use. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(3):484–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Lanning MS, Tanenbaum ML, Wong JJ, Hood KK. Barriers to continuous glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes: clinician perspectives. Diabetes Spectrum. 2020;33(4):324–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bergloff A, Stratton E, Briggs EK. A cross-sectional pilot survey of rural clinic attitudes and proficiency with insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring devices. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(11):665–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Forlenza GP, Argento NB, Laffel LM. Practical considerations on the use of continuous glucose monitoring in pediatrics and older adults and nonadjunctive use. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S3):S-13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hilliard ME, Levy W, Anderson BJ, Whitehouse AL, Commissariat PV, Harrington KR, et al. Benefits and barriers of continuous glucose monitoring in young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(9):493–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Commissariat PV, Whitehouse AL, Hilliard ME, Miller KM, Harrington KR, Levy W, et al. Sources and valence of information impacting parents decisions to use diabetes technologies in young children< 8 years old with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(9):697–700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Tanenbaum ML, Adams RN, Iturralde E, Hanes SJ, Barley RC, Naranjo D, et al. From wary wearers to d-embracers: personas of readiness to use diabetes devices. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(6):1101–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Patton SR, Clements MA. Psychological reactions associated with continuous glucose monitoring in youth. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(3):656–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith MB, Albanese-O’Neill A, Macieira TG, Yao Y, Abbatematteo JM, Lyon D, et al. Human factors associated with continuous glucose monitor use in patients with diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(10):589–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Murata T, Kuroda A, Matsuhisa M, Toyoda M, Kimura M, Hirota Y, et al. Predictive factors of the adherence to real-time continuous glucose monitoring sensors: a prospective observational study (PARCS STUDY). J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020;15(5):1084–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Tanenbaum ML, Iturralde E, Hanes SJ, Suttiratana SC, Ambrosino JM, Ly TT, et al. Trust in closed loop systems: a qualitative study of perspectives of experienced system users. J Health Psychol. 2020;25(4):429–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lawton J, Blackburn M, Rankin D, Allen JM, Campbell FM, Leelarathna L, et al. Participants experiences of, and views about, daytime use of a day-and-night hybrid closed-loop system in real life settings: longitudinal qualitative study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(3):119–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Messer LH, Berget C, Vigers T, Pyle L, Geno C, Wadwa RP, et al. Real world hybrid closed-loop discontinuation: predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(2):319–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Ully V, Mader JK, Pieber TR, Thabit H, et al. Closing the loop in adults, children and adolescents with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes under free living conditions: a psychosocial substudy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(6):1080–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Iturralde E, Tanenbaum ML, Hanes SJ, Suttiratana SC, Ambrosino JM, Ly TT, et al. Expectations and attitudes of individuals with type 1 diabetes after using a hybrid closed loop system. Diabetes Educ. 2017;43(2):223–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Association AD. 7. Diabetes technology: standards of medical care in diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(Supplement 1):S85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tanenbaum ML, Messer LH, Wu CA, Basina M, Buckingham BA, Hessler D, et al. Help when you need it: perspectives of adults with T1D on the support and training they would have wanted when starting CGM. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021;2021(180):109048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Messer LH, Berget C, Beatson C, Polsky S, Forlenza GP. Preserving skin integrity with chronic device use in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20(S2):S2-54-S2-64.

  59. American Diabetes Association. Insulin and drug affordability 2021 [Available from: https://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/insulin-and-drug-affordability.

  60. Tanenbaum ML, Adams RN, Lanning MS, Hanes SJ, Agustin BI, Naranjo D, et al. Using cluster analysis to understand clinician readiness to promote continuous glucose monitoring adoption. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(6):1108–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Aleppo G, Webb K. Continuous glucose monitoring integration in clinical practice: a stepped guide to data review and interpretation. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(4):664–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hirsch IB, Miller E. Integrating continuous glucose monitoring into clinical practices and patients lives. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(S3):S-72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Choudhary P, Campbell F, Joule N, Kar P, UK D. A type 1 diabetes technology pathway: consensus statement for the use of technology in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2019;36(5):531–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Desrochers HR, Schultz AT, Laffel LM. Use of diabetes technology in children: role of structured education for young people with diabetes and families. Endocrinol Metab Clin. 2020;49(1):19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Ehrmann D, Kulzer B, Schipfer M, Lippmann-Grob B, Haak T, Hermanns N. Efficacy of an education program for people with diabetes and insulin pump treatment (INPUT): results from a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(12):2453–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Schlüter S, Freckmann G, Heinemann L, Wintergerst P, Lange K. Evaluation of the SPECTRUM training programme for real-time continuous glucose monitoring: a real-world multicentre prospective study in 120 adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2021;38(2):e14467.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hermanns N, Ehrmann D, Schipfer M, Kröger J, Haak T, Kulzer B. The impact of a structured education and treatment programme (FLASH) for people with diabetes using a flash sensor-based glucose monitoring system: results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;150:111–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Tanenbaum M, Ngo J, Hanes S, Basina M, Buckingham BA, Hessler D, et al. ONBOARD: a feasibility study of a telehealth-based continuous glucose monitoring adoption intervention for adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(12):818–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. DiMeglio L, Kanapka L, DeSalvo D, Hilliard M, Laffel L, Tamborlane W. Strategies to enhance new CGM use in early childhood (SENCE) STUDY Group. A randomized clinical trial assessing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use with standardized education with or without a family behavioral intervention compared with fingerstick blood glucose monitoring in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(2):464–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Berget C, Thomas SE, Messer LH, Thivener K, Slover RH, Wadwa RP, et al. A clinical training program for hybrid closed loop therapy in a pediatric diabetes clinic. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020;14(2):290–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Messer LH, Berget C, Ernst A, Towers L, Slover RH, Forlenza GP. Initiating hybrid closed loop: a program evaluation of an educator-led control-IQ follow-up at a large pediatric clinic. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(4):586–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Prahalad P, Ebekozien O, Alonso GT, Clements M, Corathers S, DeSalvo D, et al. Multi-clinic quality improvement initiative increases continuous glucose monitoring use among adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. Clin Diabetes. 2021;39(3):264–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Lyons SK, Ebekozien O, Garrity A, Buckingham D, Odugbesan O, Thomas S, et al. Increasing insulin pump use among 12-to 26-year-olds with type 1 diabetes: results from the T1D exchange quality improvement collaborative. Clin Diabetes. 2021;39(3):272–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Miller VA, Xiao R, Slick N, Feudtner C, Willi SM. Youth involvement in the decision to start CGM predicts subsequent CGM use. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(10):2355–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Todres L, Keen S, Kerr D. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: patient experiences of ‘living with a machine’. Diabet Med. 2010;27(10):1201–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Polonsky WH. Psychosocial aspects of diabetes technology: adult perspective. Endocrinol Metab Clin. 2020;49(1):143–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Lawson ML, Verbeeten KC, Courtney JM, Bradley BJ, McAssey K, Clarson C, et al. Timing of CGM initiation in pediatric diabetes: the CGM TIME trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(2):279–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Prahalad P, Addala A, Scheinker D, Hood KK, Maahs DM. CGM initiation soon after type 1 diabetes diagnosis results in sustained CGM use and wear time. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(1):e3–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Prahalad P, Ding VY, Zaharieva DP, Addala A, Johari R, Scheinker D, et al. Teamwork, targets, technology, and tight control in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes: pilot 4T study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021.

  80. Litchman ML, Walker HR, Ng AH, Wawrzynski SE, Oser SM, Greenwood DA, et al. State of the science: a scoping review and gap analysis of diabetes online communities. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(3):466–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Hanes S, Nelmes S, Viana J, Lanning M, Rose K, Addala A, et al. Use of DiabetesWise.org promotes uptake of diabetes devices and shows preliminary evidence of improved glycemic outcomes. 14th International Conference on Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD)2021. p. A98-AA9.

  82. Hilliard ME, Sparling KM, Hitchcock J, Oser TK, Hood KK. The emerging diabetes online community. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2015;11(4):261–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Tenderich A, Tenderich B, Barton T, Richards SE. What are PWDs (people with diabetes) doing online? A netnographic analysis. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(2):187–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. White K, Gebremariam A, Lewis D, Nordgren W, Wedding J, Pasek J, et al. Motivations for participation in an online social media community for diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(3):712–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Nordfeldt S, Ängarne-Lindberg T, Nordwall M, Ekberg J, Berterö C. As facts and chats go online, what is important for adolescents with type 1 diabetes? PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67659.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Reidy C, Foster C, Rogers A. A novel exploration of the support needs of people initiating insulin pump therapy using a social network approach: a longitudinal mixed-methods study. Diabet Med. 2020;37(2):298–310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Messer LH. Why expectations will determine the future of artificial pancreas. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20(S2):S2-65-S2-8.

  88. Borges U, Kubiak T. Continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes human factors and usage. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016:1–7.

  89. Payk M, Robinson T, Davis D, Atchan M. An integrative review of the psychosocial facilitators and challenges of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in type 1 diabetes. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(3):528–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Kubiak T, Mann CG, Barnard KC, Heinemann L. Psychosocial aspects of continuous glucose monitoring connecting to the patients’ experience. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016;10(4):859–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Naranjo D, Suttiratana S, Iturralde E, Barnard K, Weissberg-Benchell J, Laffel L, et al. What end users and stakeholders want from automated insulin delivery systems. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(11):1453.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Commissariat PV, Roethke LC, Finnegan JL, Guo Z, Volkening LK, Butler DA, et al. Youth and parent preferences for an ideal AP system: it is all about reducing burden. Pediatr Diabetes. 2021;22(7):1063–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Indelicato L, Mariano V, Galasso S, Boscari F, Cipponeri E, Negri C, et al. Influence of health locus of control and fear of hypoglycaemia on glycaemic control and treatment satisfaction in people with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. Diabet Med. 2017;34(5):691–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Commissariat PV, Volkening LK, Butler DA, Dassau E, Weinzimer SA, Laffel LM. Innovative features and functionalities of an artificial pancreas system: what do youth and parents want? Diabet Med. 2021;38(10):e14492.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Giménez M, Conget I, Oliver N. Automated insulin delivery systems: today, tomorrow and user requirements. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;15(6):1252–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Lewis D. History and perspective on DIY closed looping. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(4):790–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Lum JW, Bailey RJ, Barnes-Lomen V, Naranjo D, Hood KK, Lal RA, et al. A real-world prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of the loop open source automated insulin delivery system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(5):367–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Dowling L, Wilmot E, Choudhary P. Do-it-yourself closed-loop systems for people living with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2020;37(12):1977–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

MLT is supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (K23DK119470).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design, drafting and critical revision, and final approval of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Molly L. Tanenbaum.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Psychosocial Aspects

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tanenbaum, M.L., Commissariat, P.V. Barriers and Facilitators to Diabetes Device Adoption for People with Type 1 Diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 22, 291–299 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-022-01469-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-022-01469-w

Keywords

Navigation