Esti Iturralde

Expectations and Attitudes of Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes After Using a Hybrid Closed Loop System

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

Avoidant coping and diabetes-related distress: Pathways to adolescents’ Type 1 diabetes outcomes.

Objective: Adolescents with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) are vulnerable to diabetes-related distress and often struggle to complete self-management tasks needed to maintain blood glucose values in target range. One way that youth with T1D handle problems is through avoidant coping. The current study examined cross-time associations between avoidant coping style and diabetes outcomes and tested the possible mediating role of diabetes-related distress. Method: Adolescents with T1D (N = 264) were assessed 4 times over 1 year to measure avoidant coping style, diabetes-related distress, adherence (on the basis of glucometer data and self-report), and glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c). Mediation and direct effects were tested across time using time-lagged autoregressive path models, making use of the repeated measurement of all constructs. Results: The hypothesized mediation effect was found for all 3 diabetes outcomes. Higher levels of avoidant coping style were associated with greater diabetes-related distress at the subsequent time point, which was related in turn to fewer blood glucose checks, less frequent self-care behaviors, and poorer glycemic control (higher A1c) at the next assessment. Conclusions: In the context of diabetes, an avoidant coping style may contribute to greater diabetes-specific distress followed by deterioration in self-management and glycemic control over time. Maladaptive coping styles are modifiable factors that offer an entry point into intervention before further difficulties can take hold.

Diabetes Technology Uptake, Outcomes, Barriers, and the Intersection With Distress

Patients managing type 1 diabetes have access to new technologies to assist in management. This manuscript has two aims: 1) to briefly review the literature on diabetes technology use and how this relates to psychological factors and 2) to present an example of human factors research using our data to examine psychological factors associated with technology use. Device/technology uptake and use has increased over the years and at present day is a common clinical practice. There are mixed results in terms of health and psychosocial outcomes, with specific subgroups doing better than others with technology. Our data demonstrated that patients have moderately elevated diabetes distress across differing types of technology used, from low-tech to high-tech options, possibly meaning that technology does not add or take away distress. In addition, users on multiple daily injections compared to all other technology groups have less positive attitudes about technology. Finally, we discuss implications for clinical practice and future research.

A randomized clinical trial aimed at preventing poor psychosocial and glycemic outcomes in teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Adolescents with type 1 diabetes have an increased risk for a variety of emotional and behavioral challenges as well as negative diabetes outcomes. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of a depression-prevention, resilience promotion program with an advanced diabetes education program. Each program consisted of 9 group-based sessions. There were 264 adolescents enrolled in this multi-site randomized clinical trial. The primary outcomes were depressive symptoms and glycemic control; secondary outcomes included resilience skills, diabetes management and adherence, and diabetes-specific distress. The goal of the present paper is to describe the study design, the intervention, and the baseline characteristics of the sample. Preliminary data suggests that enrollment, randomization and retention were successful. Longitudinal follow-up and examination of mechanisms of action as they relate to psychosocial and glycemic outcomes will be explored in the future.

Trust in hybrid closed loop among people with diabetes: Perspectives of experienced system users

Automated closed loop systems will greatly change type 1 diabetes management; user trust will be essential for acceptance of this new technology. This qualitative study explored trust in 32 individuals following a hybrid closed loop trial. Participants described how context-, system-, and person-level factors influenced their trust in the system. Participants attempted to override the system when they lacked trust, while trusting the system decreased self-management burdens and decreased stress. Findings highlight considerations for fostering trust in closed loop systems. Systems may be able to engage users by offering varying levels of controls to match trust preferences.

What End Users and Stakeholders Want From Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

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

Preventing Diabetes Distress in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: Results One Year After Participation in the STePS Program

OBJECTIVE The aim is to report 1-year outcomes of the Supporting Teens Problem Solving (STePS) study, a randomized controlled trial comparing a distress and depression prevention program with a diabetes education program for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS With 264 adolescents in two locations (Chicago and San Francisco Bay Area), a randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing the Penn Resilience Program for type 1 diabetes (PRP T1D) to Advanced Diabetes Education. Interventions lasted 4.5 months, and assessments were conducted at baseline, and 4.5, 8, 12, and 16 months. Outcomes of interest were diabetes distress (DD), depressive symptoms, resilience, diabetes self-management, and glycemic control. Latent growth curve modeling was used to test between-group differences over time. RESULTS Results indicate that there was acceptable randomization and exposure to interventions, and that exposure to PRP T1D was associated with substantial reductions in DD. In addition, stable glycemic control, resilience characteristics, and depressive symptoms were observed 1 year post-treatment. Diabetes management deteriorated in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Intervening before symptoms of psychological distress start can prevent the development of the DD commonly seen in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. The STePS program represents a promising prevention program, and future reports on 2- and 3-year outcomes will explore benefits over longer periods of time.

From Wary Wearers to d-Embracers: Personas of Readiness to Use Diabetes Devices

Background: Diabetes devices such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are associated with improved health and quality of life in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to develop different “personas” of adults with T1D in relation to readiness to adopt new diabetes technology. Methods: Participants were 1498 T1D Exchange participants who completed surveys on barriers to uptake, technology attitudes, and other psychosocial variables. HbA1c data was available from the T1D Exchange for 30% of the sample. K-means cluster analyses grouped the sample by device barriers and attitudes. The authors assigned descriptive labels based on cluster characteristics. ANOVAs and chi-square tests assessed group differences by demographic and psychosocial variables (eg, diabetes duration, diabetes distress). Results: Analyses yielded five distinct personas. The d-Embracers (54% of participants) endorsed few barriers to device use and had the highest rates of device use, lowest HbA1c, and were the least distressed. The Free Rangers (23%) had the most negative technology attitudes. The Data Minimalists (10%) used pumps but had lower CGM use and did not want more diabetes information. The Wary Wearers (11%) had lower overall device use, were younger, more distressed, endorsed many barriers, and had higher HbA1c. The High Distress (3%) group members were the youngest, had the shortest diabetes duration, reported the most barriers, and were the most distressed. Conclusion: These clinically meaningful personas of device readiness can inform tailored interventions targeting barriers and psychosocial needs to increase device uptake.