“Many people talk about the hassle of wearing devices. They don’t like having multiple devices on their bodies. They don’t always like the way that they look, and so these are things that we can have some kind of impact on and need to be paying attention to,” he said.
“The younger participants indicated a lot more barriers to using devices, and as they got older, they indicated fewer barriers. But what was also interesting is that the younger participants also indicated a lot more diabetes distress. As time went on, that was less of a factor in whether or not people were using diabetes devices,” reported Dr. Hood.
Not surprisingly, he added, was that younger participants had more favorable views of technology in general. “But they had less favorable views of diabetes technology [than older participants], so they’re really not crazy about using these devices.”
Dr. Hood’s group has also studied whether patient-reported barriers to CGM use align with what clinicians perceive to be patient-related barriers (Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11[3]484-92). Similar to the patients, clinicians most frequently endorsed the perception that patients dislike having the device on their body. However, other things they felt their patients worried about were the alarms on the device and the difficulty in understanding its features, neither of which patients considered a primary barrier to CGM or insulin pump adoption.
“So, we need to be cautious and mindful as we move forward that there are mismatches between the patient-reported and clinician-reported barriers,” said Dr. Hood. “Our response, often, is to teach and to provide some kind of education, when that’s not necessarily what the patient is asking for.”
Would you use it?
In 2017, a group of investigators conducted a qualitative study of 284 participants, ranging in age from 8 to 86 years, with T1DM. The researchers used structured interviews or focus groups to explore expectations, desired features, potential benefits, and perceived burdens of automated insulin delivery systems (Diabetes Care. 2017;40[11]:1453-61).
“We were interested in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1, and then also the partners of the adults and the parents of the youth,” he explained.
“The findings revealed three themes identified as pressing for the uptake of automated insulin delivery: considerations of trust and control, system features, and concerns and barriers to adoption.
“For children, the areas of most concern revolved around specific social situations. Adolescents, on the other hand, were more concerned about the physical features of the device, the wearability, the discreetness of using it, and the comfort,” said Dr. Hood.
Adults and parents were much more interested in device accuracy, safety, adaptability, and algorithm quality. “For the kids and teens, not surprisingly, this wasn’t high on their list,” he added.
A clear indication of the unrealistic expectations surrounding this technology came from a 2018 study of almost 200 family members, which found that “reducing the constant concerns about diabetes, relieving family stress, and improving overall family relationships” were the three major areas the participants hoped would be helped with automated insulin delivery (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20[3]:222-8).
“If we come up with a device that does this, then I think we will have fixed everything!” Dr. Hood said, adding that it really highlights the “very high hopes and expectations” of what closed-loop systems should deliver.