Current Diabetes Reports

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 711–720 | Cite as

Quality of Life and Technology: Impact on Children and Families With Diabetes

  • Masakazu Hirose
  • Elizabeth A. Beverly
  • Katie Weinger
Psychosocial Aspects (K Hood, Section Editor)


Ensuring quality of life (QOL) while maintaining glycemic control within targets is an important challenge in type 1 and type 2 diabetes treatment. For children with diabetes, QOL includes enjoying meals, feeling safe in school, and perceiving positive, supportive relationships with parents, siblings, and friends. Yet many treatment-related and psychosocial barriers can interfere with a child’s QOL and their ability to manage diabetes effectively. Diabetes management also imposes considerable lifestyle demands that are difficult and often frustrating for children to negotiate at a young age. Recent advances in diabetes medications and technologies have improved glycemic control in children with diabetes. Two widely used technologies are the insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. These technologies provide patients with more flexibility in their daily life and information about glucose fluctuations. Several studies report improvements in glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes using the insulin pump or sensor-augmented pump therapy. Importantly, these technologies may impact QOL for children and families with diabetes, although they are rarely used or studied in the treatment of children with type 2 diabetes. Further, emerging closed loop and web- and phone-based technologies have great potential for supporting diabetes self-management and perhaps QOL. A deeper understanding and appreciation of the impact of diabetes technology on children’s and parents’ QOL is critical for both the medical and psychological care of diabetes. Thus, the purpose of this review is to discuss the impact of new diabetes technologies on QOL in children, adolescents and families with type 1 diabetes.


Adolescents Children Quality of life Type 1 diabetes Continuous glucose monitoring Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion Insulin pump Technology 


Ensuring quality of life (QOL) for children and their families while maintaining glycemic control within targets is an important challenge in diabetes treatment. For children with diabetes, this well-recognized outcome [1, 2] includes enjoying meals, feeling safe in school, and perceiving positive, supportive relationships with parents, siblings, and friends. Diabetes management imposes considerable demands (diabetes nutrition guidelines, insulin regimens, glucose fluctuations, and blood glucose monitoring) that are difficult for children to negotiate at a young age. Family support is an essential factor for successful treatment, yet parents may worry about both acute and long-term side effects and complications [3].

The literature has no generally accepted definition of QOL and the value of generic vs health-related QOL is under debate [4, 5]. Here we adopt Wallander’s et al. [5] broad definition: the combination of objective and subjective measures of well-being in multiple domains of life important to one’s culture and time [5]. Relevant QOL domains for children and families with type 1 diabetes include treatment satisfaction, family relationships, self-efficacy, lifestyle flexibility, anxiety, fears of glucose fluctuations, fear of diabetes complications, and treatment expectations. Because QOL and glycemic control are 2 important and related outcomes in diabetes management, understanding relationships among these domains and outcomes has important implications for the effective adoption and use of diabetes technology in children and families with type 1 diabetes. The Figure 1 shows the possible relationships among these domains and diabetes outcomes: glycemic control (A1C) and QOL.
Fig. 1

Conceptual model of the possible relationships among factors influencing the adoption of diabetes technology

Recent advances in insulin delivery systems and other technologies have helped improve glycemic control in those with type 1 diabetes. Specifically, insulin therapy has improved with the development of new diabetes technologies, such as subcutaneous continuous insulin infusion (the insulin pump) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Several meta-analyses suggest that insulin pump therapy and CGM improve glycemic control [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Two older reviews [4, 10] suggest that more rigorous methodology in clinical trials that include quality of life is important to further evaluate the impact of new therapies on QOL. Here we build on and update those reviews.

New diabetes technologies are rarely used or studied in the treatment of children with type 2 diabetes, thus, their effectiveness is not known. While children with type 2 diabetes are generally asymptomatic, both children and their families encounter additional lifestyle challenges (eg, weight reduction, increased physical activity) and numerous barriers to diabetes management that impact quality of life [11]. The DAWN Youth Survey found that 35 % of young adults with type 2 diabetes and 48 % of their parents reported poor well-being [12]. Two studies conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes using insulin pump therapy found that participants reported higher treatment satisfaction, less management burden, and fewer social limitations [13, 14]. Research on the potential benefits, including QOL, of insulin pump therapy, CGM, and other technologies for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes is needed. Further, uniform measurement of QOL is necessary to reduce variation in observed outcomes and allow for direct comparisons across research studies [15].

In this review, we discuss the impact of new technologies on quality of life in children and families with type 1 diabetes. In the first section, we describe QOL of children with type 1 diabetes and their parents, specifically the relationship among QOL, glycemic control, and parental support in type 1 diabetes self-care. Next, we discuss the impact of insulin pump therapy and then that of continuous glucose monitoring on QOL and related domains in children and their parents. Finally, we briefly introduce other new technologies and their potential for influencing QOL.

Quality of Life for Children with Type 1 Diabetes and Parents

Intensive insulin treatment and improved glycemic control are associated with long-term reduction in diabetes complications in type 1 diabetes [16]. Intensive insulin regimens are demanding and include multiple daily injections (MDI), frequent blood glucose monitoring, appropriate food consumption, and adequate exercise. Importantly, the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial demonstrated that intensive insulin treatment, with its more rigorous self-care, improved glycemic control while maintaining QOL [17]. Further, good glycemic control itself is associated with better QOL in adolescents with type 1 diabetes [18, 19]. Many clinicians, however, worry that the demands of managing diabetes, (eg, timing of meals and insulin, prevention of complications and glucose fluctuations, and the glucose fluctuations themselves), have a negative impact on the child’s and family’s QOL.

Successful diabetes treatment depends heavily on appropriate self-management and children and adolescents need family support and assistance to be effective in their self-care. Importantly, parental support is associated with good glycemic control in children [20, 21], and is subsequently associated with better life satisfaction in parents [3]. However, parents of children with type 1 diabetes may worry about emotional and behavioral problems [22] and they report children’s overall health to be poorer than that of the general population, especially in psychosocial and parent/family domains [23]. Further, parents of adolescents with type 1 diabetes experienced less life satisfaction than other parents of school-aged children [3].

Importantly, parental involvement is associated with adolescents’ more frequent blood glucose monitoring [24], while less parental support is associated with poorer diabetes outcomes [25]. Parental over-involvement can be detrimental, however, and result in “miscarried helping,” in which parents, although well-intentioned, blame and shame the child rather than assisting in diabetes management [26, 27]. Further, parental over-involvement may create diabetes-related family conflicts [28]. High family conflict and low family support are both associated with poor glycemic control [29] and poor QOL [30]. Children’s perceived conflict is greater than that of parents [24]; the main sources of conflict for adolescents are parental worry, intrusive and/or blaming behaviors, and parents’ lack of understanding about diabetes [26]. Conversely, warm and caring family behaviors positively impact self-care participation by children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Such agency over their self-care contributes to fewer worries, a lower impact of diabetes, and greater life satisfaction [31].

In summary, good glycemic control with intensive insulin regimen, sufficient children’s self-management, and adequate family support are important factors for improving and/or maintaining QOL for both children with type 1 diabetes and their parents.

Impact of Diabetes Technology on Quality of Life

Insulin Pump Therapy

Impact of Insulin Pump Therapy on Quality of Life of Children and Their Parents

The development of the insulin pump has improved intensive insulin therapy [10]. With the pump, patients have the benefit of (1) flexibility to make precise adjustments to insulin doses; (2) multiple bolus insulin infusion patterns such as normal, square, and dual-wave boluses; and (3) adjustment of hourly basal insulin doses [32•]. With other tools such as the insulin pen, injections can only be adjusted by 0.5 units compared with 0.1 unit adjustments in bolus insulin and 0.025–0.05 unit/h adjustments in basal doses with the pump. For children with type 1 diabetes, this increased flexibility in daily life is one of the main benefits of insulin pump therapy [33].

Whether increased flexibility in insulin dose adjustments translate to improved QOL survey scores is not yet established. In several short-term randomized trials, QOL did not differ between children using insulin pump therapy vs MDI treatment [34, 35, 36]. However, most of these studies were limited by small sample sizes (eg, n = 16–72). An open, parallel randomized trial reported clinical improvements in Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) [37] scores following insulin pump treatment vs MDI [34]. A multi-center prospective pre-post study found that children using insulin pump therapy showed improvements in diabetes-specific QOL with moderate to large effect sizes (Cohen’s effect sizes d = 0.6–1.3) [38]. Another study found flexibility in dosage and timing of meals is an important benefit of insulin pump therapy [39] and that parents of young children on the insulin pump reported fewer mealtime behavior problems [40].

Diabetes self-efficacy, a person’s confidence in his/her ability to perform diabetes self-care tasks, is another factor that may influence QOL. Diabetes self-efficacy is related to better glycemic control in adolescents [41, 42]. Studies show that patients on the insulin pump improve diabetes self-efficacy more than patients on MDI treatment [43, 44]. A qualitative study found that adolescents using the insulin pump reported greater independence and more responsibility for their diabetes regimen [39]. One explanation for improved diabetes self-efficacy is that insulin pump therapy requires frequent blood glucose checks and insulin adjustment for food intake, which may increase a patient’s sense of self-management responsibility and involvement in care.

For parents of children with type 1 diabetes, a major concern is the development of complications [3]. Parents often expect the pump to reduce the chances of complications through better glycemic control [39]. However, when children transition to insulin pump therapy during the first few weeks, parents may worry about the catheter, pump malfunction, whether their child receives too much insulin, and whether other children at school might press pump buttons. Parents must learn new treatment skills, such as how to operate the insulin pump, how to adjust insulin doses, and how to insert infusion sets. Although these techniques can be challenging for many parents, most report feeling confident with the insulin pump 6 weeks to 9 months after initializing therapy [45].

In terms of parental QOL, some randomized controlled studies show that diabetes-specific QOL scores do not differ between insulin pump groups and MDI groups [34, 46, 47, 48], with similar results on parenting stress [49]. However, these studies are limited by small samples sizes (eg, n = 16–38). A randomized controlled study found that fathers in the insulin pump group improved QOL scores at 6-month follow-up [46]. Other studies found that parents report increased flexibility of meal schedules, insulin infusion timing, dose adjustment, and sleep schedules as benefits of insulin pump therapy [33, 39]. Sleep schedule flexibility may be a result of reduced anxiety due to decreases in nocturnal hypoglycemia with insulin pump therapy. Some parents described this flexibility as the release from the “slavery of diabetes management” that affects parents, children, siblings, and overall family life. In addition, parents reported that their newly found freedom (ie, flexibility) allowed them to pay more attention to their children without diabetes [45].

Treatment satisfaction, a component of QOL, is an essential factor for both children and parents. Two randomized controlled studies showed insulin pump use improved children’s treatment satisfaction [35, 50]. A cross-sectional study and a qualitative study found that both parents and children had high satisfaction with insulin pump therapy [33, 39]. Another study showed that parents reported reduced frequency and intensity of parenting stress and fear associated with hypoglycemia [38].

Children and their parents may have excessively high expectations of improvements in glycemic control with insulin pump treatment, especially if the child is in poor control. In an adult qualitative study on insulin pump therapy, patients with poor glycemic control described expectations reminiscent of a “magical” or “miracle” view of the insulin pump. In contrast, patients in good glycemic control recognized that the insulin pump was “a convenient tool” to help them reach treatment goals [51]. Most of the technology that patients use today requires patient involvement; the main operator in diabetes treatment remains the patient, not the instrument. Thus, clinicians and diabetes educators should prepare children and their patients with realistic expectations for the use of this technology.

In summary, the flexibility of insulin pump treatment has several benefits for both children and their parents, including improvement of children’s self-management and diabetes self-efficacy. Our review supports those presented by Phillip and colleagues [52], stating that QOL with insulin pump therapy is similar to or higher than that of children and adolescents with MDI. These findings are promising; however, more well-designed studies are needed to confirm the impact of insulin pump therapy on quality of life in these children and their parents. As noted by Barnard and colleagues [4], poor methodological designs (eg, no control group), low participant numbers, and inconsistent assessments of QOL limit the ability to assert a strong association between QOL benefits and insulin pump therapy.

Barriers of Insulin Pump Therapy

Insulin pump therapy has several adverse effects, which may impact quality of life, including severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and infection, pain and/or skin problems at the infusion site. Because patients use only a quick-acting insulin analog in their insulin pump, disruptions in insulin flow can rapidly induce DKA. Technology limitations in earlier versions of the insulin pump (eg, loose tubing causing insulin leaks, bent or kinked tubing preventing insulin delivery) increased the risk for DKA; however, with improved insulin pump technology the risk for DKA has decreased greatly. However, most randomized controlled studies with the insulin pump and MDI treatment in children and adolescents showed no differences in the frequency of DKA [10, 34, 35, 36, 46, 47, 48, 53]. Further, a multicenter pair-matched cohort study showed that insulin pump therapy decreased the frequency of DKA; this finding was maintained at the 3 year follow-up period [54]. DKA remains a serious side-effect of insulin pump therapy, but as patients, families, and clinicians become more familiar with the technology, the frequency of DKA should decrease [55, 56].

Hypoglycemia poses a significant challenge of parents and children with type 1 diabetes [57]. Most randomized controlled studies do not show differences in the frequency of severe hypoglycemia in insulin pump use vs insulin injections [34, 35, 36, 46, 47, 48, 50, 53], most likely because these studies were short-term with small samples (eg, n = 16–72). Importantly, in longitudinal studies with 3 [54, 58] to 4 year [59] follow-up, the frequency of severe hypoglycemia decreased with insulin pump therapy. Further, parental fear of hypoglycemia for children on MDI treatment can be higher than that of children on insulin pump therapy [60].

Some clinicians worry that body image concerns may be a barrier to insulin pump treatment because children may feel self-conscious or embarrassed about wearing devices that could call attention to their diabetes. Further, these devices may be viewed as an invasion of privacy [61]. However, in a qualitative study of parents’ experiences managing their child’s type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump, the insulin pump was described as a “mini life-support system” [45]. Another qualitative study found insulin pumps had little impact on how children felt about their bodies or their appearance, and only described tape residue and old sites as minor issues related to appearance [39]. Thus, wearing the insulin pump may not be a problem for most children. One explanation for this finding is that the pumps may be less intrusive or embarrassing for children than using alternatives such as insulin pens or syringes.

Insulin pump therapy requires more skills than other treatments. One study found that children acquire mastery for insulin pump-related skills at an older age compared with MDI skills, most likely due to the increased number and complexity of skills associated with insulin pumps [62]. However, this does not mean younger children cannot independently master pump procedures for bolus infusions. Research shows that parents can help younger children learn about pump mechanics and share insulin pump tasks with their children more easily than with MDI treatment [63].

Finally, minimal research has explored the distribution of insulin regimens across racial/ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status. A recent study by Paris and colleagues shows insulin pump use is more common in non-Hispanic white families and families with higher household incomes, higher parental education and private insurance [64]. This finding is particularly important given that adolescents from ethnic minorities are more likely to have higher HbA1c levels [65, 66, 67, 68]. More equitable distribution of resources is needed to help all children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes improve glycemic control and QOL. Additional research is needed to understand the impact of race/ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic status on diabetes treatment preferences.

School Life with Insulin Pump Therapy

Appropriate diabetes care in school is necessary for children’s safety, long-term well-being, and optimal academic performance [69]. Children and adolescents on intensive insulin treatment regimens report higher health-related quality of life (HRQOL) on Friends and School subscales [70]. The positive impact of insulin pump therapy on friendships may be due to children with diabetes being perceived as the same as others, rather than being identified as ‘different’. Further, the flexibility in food choices and meal times allows children to participate more fully in social activities with their friends [63].

Keeping children with diabetes safe in school is extremely important, as they spend half of their day in school. School nurses play an important role in children’s diabetes care, especially for younger patients who are not able to take care of their diabetes themselves. Lack of understanding about type 1 diabetes and related technologies is common among teachers and school nurses [71]. School nurses may lack education and experience with new diabetes technologies [72] because schools are often under-resourced and under-funded. Training, including hands-on experience with the insulin pump, can help school nurses to correctly understand and operate the device [72]. In pre-school age type 1 diabetes children, research indicates that there is no difference in glycemic control between patients whose mothers take care of their insulin pump treatment vs other caregivers [73]. Thus, pre-school and school nurses who understand the treatment can effectively manage insulin pump therapy and interact more appropriately with children with type 1 diabetes. Including school nurses as members of the child’s diabetes care team is important for consistent care [61].

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Treatment

HbA1c reflects average blood glucose levels over several months. Recent research argues that glycemic instability, not just high HbA1c levels, may contribute to the development of diabetes complications [74, 75, 76], suggesting that preventing blood glucose fluctuations as well as high HbA1c levels is important for well-controlled diabetes. Thus, understanding and preventing glycemic fluctuations is becoming more important in the treatment of diabetes.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a novel monitoring system that measures glucose levels at five-minute intervals. Originally, CGM devices had wires attaching the subcutaneous sensor to the device; data were then downloaded to a computer. Now, wireless devices that have the advantage of providing glucose readings in real-time are also available. One important benefit of CGM is the ability to identify glucose trends between meals and during the night. CGM also allows patients to preset alerts to warn of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia.

Parents have high expectations of CGM. Only a small percentage of parents believe that using a CGM will increase their diabetes-related stress, though many have anxiety about using a new treatment [77]. Children and their parents reported the following benefits of real-time CGM: hypoglycemia prevention (88 %), elimination of hypoglycemia-related anxiety (83 %), ease of pattern management, improvement in diabetes control (80 %), improvement in quality of life (78 %), and ease of diabetes care (78 %) [78].

Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Quality of Life

With the advent of new complex technologies, clinicians often worry that quality of life for children and families would be negatively affected. However, Chase et al reported no difference in diabetes quality of life (DQOL) scores between the CGM group and conventional treatment group in a randomized study with a small sample size [79]. Several large randomized controlled studies have examined QOL in real-time CGM vs conventional treatment [80•, 81••, 82•, 83••]. In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, the Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) group found high parental satisfaction with CGM treatment but no meaningful changes in QOL, parental fear of hypoglycemia, and diabetes-related distress [80•]. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) study, a large multicenter randomized controlled study comparing real-time CGM vs conventional treatment group, also found no differences in generic and diabetes-specific QOL scores [81••]. Further, this study reported no differences in parental fear of hypoglycemia between CGM and conventional treatment groups. Both the DirecNet study [80•] and JDRF study [81••] observed no differences between CGM and conventional treatment groups in parental QOL and parent diabetes-related distress scores. Interestingly, a small follow-up study to the JDRF trial found that children (8–17 years old) randomized to CGM reported greater anxiety and negative affect around blood glucose monitoring compared with children randomized to standard blood glucose monitoring [84]. Others found that pain, discomfort, problematic equipment, intrusiveness, and other hassles as barriers [85]. These findings support the need to examine relationships between multiple psychosocial correlations and CGM in order to improve CGM utilization, glycemic control, and QOL.

Frequency of CGM use may be associated with QOL and glycemic control. JDRF and Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C Reduction (STAR 3) studies showed improvement in HbA1c levels in the insulin pump and CGM treatment group [82•, 83••]. Both the child and adult groups improved HbA1c levels in the STAR 3 study; however, in the JDRF study the 8 to 14-year-old age group and 15 to 24-year-old age group did not improve HbA1c levels. In the JDRF study, 83 % of patients aged 25 years or older used CGM 6 or more days per week, while usage decreased in both the 15 to 24-year-old and 8 to 14-year-old groups (30 % and 50 % of patients, respectively) [83••]. In the DirecNet study, only 41 % children used CGM at least 6 or more days per week at the end of study (26 weeks) [80•]. The STAR 3 study also found an association between an increase in the frequency of sensor use and a greater reduction in HbA1c [82•]. In terms of QOL and treatment satisfaction, the DirecNet study found that higher parents’ scores on a self-management survey [86••] and PedsQL were associated with more frequent CGM use [87]. In the JDRF study, CGM satisfaction was higher for patients who used CGM 6 or more days per week compared with those who used it less than 6 days per week [81••, 88]. This finding suggests that patients who use CGM less frequently may feel annoyed with multiple CGM sensor insertions and the alarms. In contrast, patients who use CGM 6–7 days per week may perceive more benefits than disadvantages from using CGM because the CGM has become part of their daily routine. In summary, improvement in QOL with CGM may depend on how frequently patients use the device, patients’ attitude towards CGM, and perceptions of its value.

Barriers to CGM Use

CGM requires more tasks than finger stick glucose monitoring. The main areas of dissatisfaction involve mechanical problems such as sensor alarms, interference in daily routine by alarms, and the sensor feeling too bulky [78]. Children and parents reported more problems with the technical aspects (eg, false alarms, inaccuracy) and less dissatisfaction with the psychological ramifications of CGM use (eg, anxiety, intrusiveness, family conflict) [89]. Further, body image concerns may be a barrier with CGM. Patients who treat their diabetes with the insulin pump and CGM wear 2 devices at 2 insertion sites. Skin reactions may also become a barrier. One study showed that skin reactions were cited as a main reason for reduced frequency of CGM use in children less than 4 years of age [90]. However, in the JDRF study, children reported fewer concerns about pain at insertion sites and body image issues compared with their parents and more annoyances with alarms [88]. Finally, the high cost of new diabetes technology can be a barrier for diabetes treatment as CGM is more expensive than fingerstick monitoring, and some insurance companies do not cover these costs [91].

Other Diabetes Technologies

Impact of Other Technologies on Quality of Life

Several other technologies may be useful for diabetes education and self-care support. For example, web-based programs targeting adolescents may support self-care [92, 93, 94, 95] and mobile phones are easy and convenient tools for both data management and medical support [96, 97, 98, 99]. Importantly, usage of new technologies may wane over time [96]. Some children with type 1 diabetes may require complex insulin adjustment, and the new smart phones may help with applications such as a food intake calculator, an insulin dose calculator, and a blood glucose reference tool. In a meta-analysis of mobile phone interventions, patients with type 1 diabetes reduced HbA1c values by a mean change of 0.3 % [100]. Importantly, 24-hour mobile phone support was associated with reduced DKA in young adults with type 1 diabetes (mean age is 19.9–22.0 years old) [101]. An intervention study using the insulin pump and mobile phone support showed an improvement in DQOL global scores and DQOL satisfaction scores [102]. Another study using a daily scheduled text-messaging support system found improvements in diabetes self-efficacy and self-care adherence in children with type 1 diabetes aged 8 to 18 years [103]. Finally, a study of phone-based glucose monitoring found no effect on QOL [104]. Although more studies are needed, smart phone technologies have potential for improving both self-care and QOL.

Other new technologies have been developed specifically for insulin treatment. The intraperitoneal insulin infusion pump has shown improvements in QOL compared with standard insulin pump treatment [105, 106], although the comparative impact on HbA1c remains unclear [106, 107]. Inhaled insulin has also shown improvements in glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in a randomized controlled trial with adult type 1 diabetes patients [108, 109].

The ideal insulin treatment device of the future may be the closed-loop system. A few closed-loop systems have been developed and tested in randomized controlled trials [110, 111, 112], however, these systems are not yet ready for commercial use. If and when closed-loop systems are approved for use, their impact on patients’ and families’ QOL will be of great interest.


New technologies for diabetes treatment have several benefits. In this review, we reported that increased flexibility of daily life is one of the most important benefits for improving QOL for children with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Insulin pump therapy improves meal-times, bolus infusion patterns and hourly basal insulin does, which in turn, increases flexibility in children’s and families daily lives. Further, insulin pump therapy can improve diabetes self-efficacy and engagement in children, thereby improving diabetes self-management. CGM treatment is helpful in identifying glucose trends between meals and during the night, which can decrease fear of hypoglycemia and improve QOL for children and their families. Finally, combined treatment, or CGM sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, may be the most successful treatment for children with type 1 diabetes until closed-loop systems are approved for use.

While several observational and qualitative studies report improvements in QOL, diabetes self-efficacy, and treatment satisfaction with insulin pump therapy and CGM treatment, only a few randomized controlled studies demonstrate improvements in QOL. Thus, future randomized controlled studies need to include QOL as an outcome to ensure that developing technologies have a positive impact on children and families with diabetes. Further, the examination of QOL as an important health outcome is particularly relevant given that the US FDA now recommends patient-reported outcome results in clinical trials [1, 2, 113]. Finally, minimal research has examined the impact of new technology in children with type 2 diabetes. Clinical trials that assess the effectiveness of these new treatment tools for technology in children and families with type 2 diabetes are needed.

In conclusion, both children and their families face numerous challenges to diabetes management that impact QOL. Clinicians are well-positioned to recognize the cues of children and parents struggling to manage diabetes amidst self-care difficulties and daily life stressors. Integrating diabetes technology, such as insulin pump therapy and CGM, into a child’s treatment plan may help children improve their QOL and glycemic control while preventing severe hypoglycemia and DKA. Thus, a more comprehensive understanding and appreciation of children’s and parents’ QOL and the provision of support and self-management skills training are critical for both the medical and psychological care of type 1 diabetes.



This work was partially supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant R01 DK60115 and the NIH Training Grant No. T32 DK007260.


No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, et al. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;6:522–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLeod LD, Coon CD, Martin SA, et al. Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:163–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faulkner MS, Clark FS. Quality of life for parents of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 1998;24:721–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnard KD, Lloyd CE, Skinner TC. Systematic literature review: quality of life associated with insulin pump use in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2007;24:607–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wallander JL, Schmitt M, Koot HM. Quality of life measurement in children and adolescents: issues, instruments, and applications. J Clin Psychol. 2001;57:571–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Monami M, Lamanna C, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs multiple daily insulin injections in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Acta Diabetol. 2010;47:77–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pankowska E, Blazik M, Dziechciarz P, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs multiple daily injections in children with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10:52–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Golicki DT, Golicka D, Groele L, Pankowska E. Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2008;51:233–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ. 2011;343:d3805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weissberg-Benchell J, Antisdel-Lomaglio J, Seshadri R. Insulin pump therapy: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1079–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mulvaney SA, Schlundt DG, Mudasiru E, et al. Parent perceptions of caring for adolescents with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:993–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peyrot M. The DAWN Youth WebTalk Study: methods, findings, and implications. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10 Suppl 13:37–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raskin P, Bode BW, Marks JB, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injection therapy are equally effective in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, parallel-group, 24-week study. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:2598–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bode BW. Use of rapid-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: insulin pump therapy vs multiple daily injections. Clin Ther. 2007;29(Suppl D):S135–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Polisena J, Tran K, Cimon K, et al. Home telehealth for diabetes management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11:913–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anderson RM, Donnelly MB, Gorenflo DW, et al. Influencing the attitudes of medical students toward diabetes. Results of a controlled study. Diabetes Care. 1993;16:503–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Influence of intensive diabetes treatment on quality-of-life outcomes in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care. 1996;19:195–203.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoey H, Aanstoot HJ, Chiarelli F, et al. Good metabolic control is associated with better quality of life in 2101 adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1923–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guttmann-Bauman I, Flaherty BP, Strugger M, McEvoy RC. Metabolic control and quality-of-life self-assessment in adolescents with IDDM. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:915–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobson AM, Hauser ST, Lavori P, et al. Family environment and glycemic control: a 4 year prospective study of children and adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Psychosom Med. 1994;56:401–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wysocki T. Associations among teen-parent relationships, metabolic control, and adjustment to diabetes in adolescents. J Pediatr Psychol. 1993;18:441–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nardi L, Zucchini S, D’Alberton F, et al. Quality of life, psychological adjustment, and metabolic control in youths with type 1 diabetes: a study with self- and parent-report questionnaires. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9:496–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wake M, Hesketh K, Cameron F. The Child Health Questionnaire in children with diabetes: cross-sectional survey of parent and adolescent-reported functional health status. Diabet Med. 2000;17:700–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson BJ, Vangsness L, Connell A, et al. Family conflict, adherence, and glycaemic control in youth with short duration type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2002;19:635–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schafer LC, McCaul KD, Glasgow RE. Supportive and nonsupportive family behaviors: relationships to adherence and metabolic control in persons with type I diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1986;9:179–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weinger K, O’Donnell KA, Ritholz MD. Adolescent views of diabetes-related parent conflict and support: a focus group analysis. J Adolesc Health. 2001;29:330–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anderson B, Coyne JC. Miscarried helping in the families of children and adolescents with chronic disease. In: Jhonson JH, Jhonson SB, editors. Advances in child health psychology. Gainesville: University of Florida Press; 1991. p. 167–77.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller-Johnson S, Emery RE, Marvin RS, et al. Parent-child relationships and the management of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62:603–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hauser ST, Jacobson AM, Lavori P, et al. Adherence among children and adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus over a four-year longitudinal follow-up: II. Immediate and long-term linkages with the family milieu. J Pediatr Psychol. 1990;15:527–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Laffel LM, Connell A, Vangsness L, et al. General quality of life in youth with type 1 diabetes: relationship to patient management and diabetes-specific family conflict. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:3067–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Faulkner MS, Chang LI. Family influence on self-care, quality of life, and metabolic control in school-age children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr Nurs. 2007;22:59–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Pickup JC. Insulin-pump therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1616–24. This feature reviews the major clinical trials using insulin pump therapy and discusses the clinical benefits of this technology and potential adverse effects..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mednick L, Cogen FR, Streisand R. Satisfaction and quality of life in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents following transition to insulin pump therapy. Children’s Health Care. 2004;33:169–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nuboer R, Borsboom GJ, Zoethout JA, et al. Effects of insulin pump vs injection treatment on quality of life and impact of disease in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a randomized, prospective comparison. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9:291–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weintrob N, Benzaquen H, Galatzer A, et al. Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injection regimens in children with type 1 diabetes: a randomized open crossover trial. Pediatrics. 2003;112:559–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doyle EA, Weinzimer SA, Steffen AT, et al. A randomized, prospective trial comparing the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple daily injections using insulin glargine. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1554–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Jacobs JR, et al. The PedsQL in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales and type 1 Diabetes Module. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:631–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muller-Godeffroy E, Treichel S, Wagner VM. Investigation of quality of life and family burden issues during insulin pump therapy in children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus–a large-scale multicentre pilot study. Diabet Med. 2009;26:493–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Low KG, Massa L, Lehman D, Olshan JS. Insulin pump use in young adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a descriptive study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2005;6:22–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Patton SR, Williams LB, Dolan LM, et al. Feeding problems reported by parents of young children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy and their associations with children’s glycemic control. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10:455–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grossman HY, Brink S, Hauser ST. Self-efficacy in adolescent girls and boys with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1987;10:324–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Littlefield CH, Craven JL, Rodin GM, et al. Relationship of self-efficacy and binging to adherence to diabetes regimen among adolescents. Diabetes Care. 1992;15:90–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McMahon SK, Airey FL, Marangou DA, et al. Insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents: improvements in key parameters of diabetes management including quality of life. Diabet Med. 2005;22:92–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Battaglia MR, Alemzadeh R, Katte H, et al. Brief report: disordered eating and psychosocial factors in adolescent females with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr Psychol. 2006;31:552–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sullivan-Bolyai S, Knafl K, Tamborlane W, Grey M. Parents’ reflections on managing their children’s diabetes with insulin pumps. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2004;36:316–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fox LA, Buckloh LM, Smith SD, et al. A randomized controlled trial of insulin pump therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:1277–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wilson DM, Buckingham BA, Kunselman EL, et al. A 2-center randomized controlled feasibility trial of insulin pump therapy in young children with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:15–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Opipari-Arrigan L, Fredericks EM, Burkhart N, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion benefits quality of life in preschool-age children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2007;8:377–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nabhan ZM, Kreher NC, Greene DM, et al. A randomized prospective study of insulin pump vs insulin injection therapy in very young children with type 1 diabetes: 12-month glycemic, BMI, and neurocognitive outcomes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10:202–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Skogsberg L, Fors H, Hanas R, et al. Improved treatment satisfaction but no difference in metabolic control when using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs multiple daily injections in children at onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9:472–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ritholz MD, Smaldone A, Lee J, et al. Perceptions of psychosocial factors and the insulin pump. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:549–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Phillip M, Battelino T, Rodriguez H, et al. Use of insulin pump therapy in the pediatric age-group: consensus statement from the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, endorsed by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1653–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    DiMeglio LA, Pottorff TM, Boyd SR, et al. A randomized, controlled study of insulin pump therapy in diabetic preschoolers. J Pediatr. 2004;145:380–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jakisch BI, Wagner VM, Heidtmann B, et al. Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injections (MDI) in paediatric type 1 diabetes: a multicentre matched-pair cohort analysis over 3 years. Diabet Med. 2008;25:80–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pickup J, Keen H. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion at 25 years: evidence base for the expanding use of insulin pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:593–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bending JJ, Pickup JC, Keen H. Frequency of diabetic ketoacidosis and hypoglycemic coma during treatment with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Audit of medical care. Am J Med. 1985;79:685–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Berlin KS, Davies WH, Jastrowski KE, et al. Contextual assessment of problematic situations identified by insulin pump using adolescents and their parents. Families Syst Health. 2006;24:33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Katz ML, Volkening LK, Anderson BJ, Laffel LM. Contemporary rates of severe hypoglycaemia in youth with type 1 diabetes: variability by insulin regimen. Diabet Med. 2012;29(7):926–32.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shalitin S, Gil M, Nimri R, et al. Predictors of glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes commencing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. Diabet Med. 2010;27:339–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Haugstvedt A, Wentzel-Larsen T, Graue M, et al. Fear of hypoglycaemia in mothers and fathers of children with type 1 diabetes is associated with poor glycaemic control and parental emotional distress: a population-based study. Diabet Med. 2010;27:72–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bierschbach JL, Cooper L, Liedl JA. Insulin pumps: what every school nurse needs to know. J Sch Nurs. 2004;20:117–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weissberg-Benchell J, Goodman SS, Antisdel Lomaglio J, Zebracki K. The use of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII): parental and professional perceptions of self-care mastery and autonomy in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32:1196–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Alsaleh FM, Smith FJ, Taylor KM. Experiences of children/young people and their parents, using insulin pump therapy for the management of type 1 diabetes: qualitative review. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37:140–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Paris CA, Imperatore G, Klingensmith G, et al. Predictors of insulin regimens and impact on outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study. J Pediatr. 2009;155:183e1–9e1.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Johns C, Faulkner MS, Quinn L. Characteristics of adolescents with type 1 diabetes who exhibit adverse outcomes. Diabetes Educ. 2008;34:874–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Delamater AM, Albrecht DR, Postellon DC, Gutai JP. Racial differences in metabolic control of children and adolescents with type I diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1991;14:20–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gallegos-Macias AR, Macias SR, Kaufman E, et al. Relationship between glycemic control, ethnicity and socioeconomic status in Hispanic and white non-Hispanic youths with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2003;4:19–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chalew SA, Gomez R, Butler A, et al. Predictors of glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes: the importance of race. J Diabetes Complications. 2000;14:71–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Klingensmith G, Kaufman F, Schatz D, Clarke W. Care of children with diabetes in the school and day care setting. Diabetes Care. 2003;26 Suppl 1:S131–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wagner VM, Muller-Godeffroy E, von Sengbusch S, et al. Age, metabolic control and type of insulin regime influences health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Eur J Pediatr. 2005;164:491–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Spencer J, Cooper H, Milton B. Qualitative studies of type 1 diabetes in adolescence: a systematic literature review. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11:364–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Darby W. The experiences of school nurses caring for students receiving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy. J Sch Nurs. 2006;22:336–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Weinzimer SA, Ahern JH, Doyle EA, et al. Persistence of benefits of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in very young children with type 1 diabetes: a follow-up report. Pediatrics. 2004;114:1601–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Brownlee M, Hirsch IB. Glycemic variability: a hemoglobin A1c-independent risk factor for diabetic complications. JAMA. 2006;295:1707–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ceriello A, Ihnat MA. ‘Glycaemic variability’: a new therapeutic challenge in diabetes and the critical care setting. Diabet Med. 2010;27:862–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kilpatrick ES, Rigby AS, Atkin SL. For debate. Glucose variability and diabetes complication risk: we need to know the answer. Diabet Med. 2010;27:868–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kashmer L, Clarke W, Gurka M, et al. Predictors of parental interest in continuous glucose monitoring for children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:373–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cemeroglu AP, Stone R, Kleis L, et al. Use of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in children and young adults on insulin pump therapy: patients’ and caregivers’ perception of benefit. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11:182–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Chase HP, Kim LM, Owen SL, et al. Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatrics. 2001;107:222–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    • Mauras N, Beck R, Xing D, et al. A randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes in young children aged 4 to <10 years. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:204–10. This is the most recently published randomized controlled trial evaluating QOL with real-time CGM in children with type 1 diabetes. This study found a high degree of parental satisfaction with CGM..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    •• Beck RW, Lawrence JM, Laffel L, et al. Quality-of-life measures in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:2175–7. This study found high levels of satisfacion with CGM, but reported no differrences in QOL between a CGM group and control grous in patients <18 years of age and their parents..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    • Bergenstal RM, Tamborlane WV, Ahmann A, et al. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:311–20. This one-year randomized controlled trial showed that both adult and children using CGM and the insulin pump improved HbA1c. It also showed that an increased frequency of sensor use was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c level..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    •• Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1464–76. This large randomized controlled study showed improvement inHbA1c in the adult group, but no differences in the 8–14 year old and 15–24 year old groups..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Markowitz JT, Pratt K, Aggarwal J, et al. Psychosocial correlates of continuous glucose monitoring use in youth and adults with type 1 diabetes and parents of youth. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ramchandani N, Arya S, Ten S, Bhandari S. Real-life utilization of real-time continuous glucose monitoring: the complete picture. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:860–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    •• Harris MA, Wysocki T, Sadler M, et al. Validation of a structured interview for the assessment of diabetes self-management. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:1301–4. This review discusses the use of technology to improve diabetes management and glycemic control in this teens with diabetes..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Psychological aspects of continuous glucose monitoring in pediatric type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2006;7:32–8.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Tansey M, Laffel L, Cheng J, et al. Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring in adults and youths with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2011;28:1118–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Youth and parent satisfaction with clinical use of the GlucoWatch G2 Biographer in the management of pediatric type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:1929–35.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Tsalikian E, Fox L, Weinzimer S, et al. Feasibility of prolonged continuous glucose monitoring in toddlers with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;13(4):301–7.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    McQueen RB, Ellis SL, Campbell JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring and intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;9:13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Whittemore R, Grey M, Lindemann E, et al. Development of an Internet coping skills training program for teenagers with type 1 diabetes. Comput Inform Nurs. 2010;28:103–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Mulvaney SA, Rothman RL, Osborn CY, et al. Self-management problem solving for adolescents with type 1 diabetes: intervention processes associated with an Internet program. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85:140–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Mulvaney SA, Rothman RL, Wallston KA, et al. An internet-based program to improve self-management in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:602–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Harris MA, Hood KK, Mulvaney SA. Pumpers, skypers, surfers, and texters: technology to improve the management of diabetes in teenagers. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1326.2012.01599.x.
  96. 96.
    Hanauer DA, Wentzell K, Laffel N, Laffel LM. Computerized Automated Reminder Diabetes System (CARDS): e-mail and SMS cell phone text messaging reminders to support diabetes management. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:99–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mulvaney SA, Anders S, Smith AK, et al. A pilot test of a tailored mobile and web-based diabetes messaging system for adolescents. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18:115–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Mulvaney SA, Ritterband LM, Bosslet L. Mobile intervention design in diabetes: review and recommendations. Curr Diab Rep. 2011;11:486–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mulvaney SA, Rothman RL, Dietrich MS, et al. Using mobile phones to measure adolescent diabetes adherence. Health Psychol. 2012;31:43–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Liang X, Wang Q, Yang X, et al. Effect of mobile phone intervention for diabetes on glycaemic control: a meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2011;28:455–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Farrell K, Holmes-Walker DJ. Mobile phone support is associated with reduced ketoacidosis in young adults. Diabet Med. 2011;28:1001–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Benhamou PY, Melki V, Boizel R, et al. One-year efficacy and safety of Web-based follow-up using cellular phone in type 1 diabetic patients under insulin pump therapy: the PumpNet study. Diabetes Metab. 2007;33:220–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Franklin VL, Waller A, Pagliari C, Greene SA. A randomized controlled trial of Sweet Talk, a text-messaging system to support young people with diabetes. Diabet Med. 2006;23:1332–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Carroll AE, DiMeglio LA, Stein S, Marrero DG. Using a cell phone-based glucose monitoring system for adolescent diabetes management. Diabetes Educ. 2011;37:59–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Logtenberg SJ, Kleefstra N, Houweling ST, et al. Health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and costs associated with intraperitoneal vs subcutaneous insulin administration in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:1169–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Dunn FL, Nathan DM, Scavini M, et al. Long-term therapy of IDDM with an implantable insulin pump. The implantable insulin pump trial study group. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:59–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Logtenberg SJ, Kleefstra N, Houweling ST, et al. Improved glycemic control with intraperitoneal vs subcutaneous insulin in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:1372–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Skyler JS, Jovanovic L, Klioze S, et al. Two-year safety and efficacy of inhaled human insulin (Exubera) in adult patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:579–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Testa MA, Simonson DC. Satisfaction and quality of life with premeal inhaled vs injected insulin in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1399–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Hovorka R, Kumareswaran K, Harris J, et al. Overnight closed loop insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) in adults with type 1 diabetes: crossover randomized controlled studies. BMJ. 2011;342:d1855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hovorka R, Allen JM, Elleri D, et al. Manual closed-loop insulin delivery in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a phase 2 randomized crossover trial. Lancet. 2010;375:743–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    El-Khatib FH, Russell SJ, Nathan DM, et al. A bihormonal closed-loop artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2:27ra27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Wiklund I. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health-related quality of life. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2004;18:351–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masakazu Hirose
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. Beverly
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katie Weinger
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical, Behavioral and Outcomes ResearchJoslin Diabetes CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations