BackgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables users to view real-time interstitial glucose readings and provides information on the direction and rate of change of blood glucose levels. Users can also access historical data to inform treatment decisions. While the clinical and psychological benefits of CGM are well established, little is known about how individuals use CGM to inform diabetes self-management. We explored participants’ experiences of using CGM in order to provide recommendations for supporting individuals to make optimal use of this technology.MethodsIn-depth interviews (n = 24) with adults, adolescents and parents who had used CGM for ≥4 weeks; data were analysed thematically.ResultsParticipants found CGM an empowering tool because they could access blood glucose data effortlessly, and trend arrows enabled them to see whether blood glucose was rising or dropping and at what speed. This predicative information aided short-term lifestyle planning and enabled individuals to take action to prevent hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Having easy access to blood glucose data on a continuous basis also allowed participants to develop a better understanding of how insulin, activity and food impacted on blood glucose. This understanding was described as motivating individuals to make dietary changes and break cycles of over-treating hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Participants also described how historical CGM data provided a more nuanced picture of blood glucose control than was possible with blood glucose self-monitoring and, hence, better information to inform changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. However, while participants expressed confidence making immediate adjustments to insulin and lifestyle to address impending hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, most described needing and expecting health professionals to interpret historical CGM data and determine changes to background insulin doses and mealtime ratios. While alarms could reinforce a sense of hypoglycaemic safety, some individuals expressed ambivalent views, especially those who perceived alarms as signalling personal failure to achieve optimal glycaemic control.ConclusionsCGM can be an empowering and motivational tool which enables participants to fine-tune and optimize their blood glucose control. However, individuals may benefit from psycho-social education, training and/or technological support to make optimal use of CGM data and use alarms appropriately.

OBJECTIVEHypoglycemia unawareness (HU) affects ∼25% of people with type 1 diabetes. People with HU are often reliant on family to detect hypoglycemia and treat severe episodes. We explored the impact of HU on family members' lives, their involvement in preventing and managing hypoglycemia, and their information and support needs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis study employed an exploratory, qualitative design comprising in-depth interviews with 24 adult family members of persons with type 1 diabetes and HU. RESULTSFamily members described restricting their lives so that they could help the person with HU detect and treat hypoglycemia. Some described being very physically afraid of their partner/relative when they had a hypoglycemic episode due to their aggressive and argumentative behavior and personality changes; this could also make treatment administration difficult. Family members also reported feeling anxious and worried about the safety of the person with HU, particularly when they were left unsupervised. These concerns were often precipitated by traumatic events, such as discovering the person with HU in a coma. Family members could neglect their own health and well-being to care for the person with HU and resentment could build up over time. Family members highlighted extensive, unmet needs for information and emotional support; however, some struggled to recognize and accept their own need for help. CONCLUSIONSOur findings reveal a caregiver group currently "in the shadow of the patient" and in urgent need of information and emotional support. Raising awareness among health care professionals is essential, and developing proactive support for family should be considered.

OBJECTIVETo determine whether improvements in glycemic control and diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) scores reported in research studies for the type 1 diabetes structured education program Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating (DAFNE) are also found when the intervention is delivered within routine U.K. health care.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSBefore and after evaluation of DAFNE to assess impact on glycemic control and QoL among 262 adults with type 1 diabetes.RESULTSThere were significant improvements in HbA1c from baseline to 6 and 12 months (from 9.1 to 8.6 and 8.8%, respectively) in a subgroup with suboptimal control. QoL was significantly improved by 3 months and maintained at both follow-up points.CONCLUSIONSLonger-term improved glycemic control and QoL is achievable among adults with type 1 diabetes through delivery of structured education in routine care, albeit with smaller effect sizes than reported in trials.

Improving management of type 1 diabetes in the UK: the Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating (DAFNE) programme as a research test-bed. A mixed-method analysis of the barriers to and facilitators of successful diabetes self-management, a health economic analysis, a cluster randomised controlled trial of different models of delivery of an educational intervention and the potential of insulin pumps and additional educator input to improve outcomes

Objective: To explore individuals' experiences of daytime use of a day-and-night hybrid closed-loop system, their information and support needs, and their views about how future systems could be improved. Research Design and Methods: Twenty-four adults, adolescents, and parents were interviewed before using a hybrid day-and-night closed-loop system and 3 months later, data were analyzed thematically. Results: Participants praised the closed loop's ability to respond to high and low blood glucose in ways which extended beyond their own capabilities and to act as a safety net and mop up errors, such as when a mealtime bolus was forgotten or unplanned activity was undertaken. Participants also described feeling less burdened by diabetes as a consequence and more able to lead flexible, spontaneous lives. Contrary to their initial expectations, and after trust in the system had been established, most individuals wanted opportunities to collaborate with the closed loop to optimize its effectiveness. Such individuals expressed a need to communicate information, such as when routines changed or to indicate different intensities of physical activity. While individuals valued frequent contact with staff in the initial month of use, most felt that their long-term support needs would be no greater than when using an insulin pump. Conclusions: While participants reported substantial benefits to using the closed loop during the day, they also identified ways in which the technology could be refined and education and training tailored to optimize effective use. Our findings suggest that mainstreaming this technology will not necessarily lead to increased demands on clinical staff.