OBJECTIVEDiabetes devices (insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors [CGMs]) are associated with benefits for glycemic control, yet uptake of these devices continues to be low. Some barriers to device uptake may be modifiable through psychosocial intervention, but little is known about which barriers and which patients to target.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe surveyed 1,503 adult T1D Exchange participants (mean age 35.3 [SD 14.8] years, mean diagnosis duration 20.4 [SD 12.5] years) to investigate barriers to device uptake, understand profiles of device users versus nonusers, and explore differences by age and sex. Scales used were the Diabetes Distress Scale, Technology Use Attitudes (General and Diabetes-Specific), and Barriers to Device Use and Reasons for Discontinuing Devices.RESULTSMost commonly endorsed modifiable barriers were related to the hassle of wearing devices (47%) and disliking devices on one’s body (35%). CGM users (37%) were older than nonusers (mean 38.3 vs. 33.5 years), had diabetes for longer (22.9 vs. 18.8 years), had more positive technology attitudes (22.6–26.0 vs. 21.4–24.8), and reported fewer barriers to using diabetes technology than nonusers (3.3 vs. 4.3). The youngest age-group (18–25 years) had the lowest CGM (26% vs. 40–48%) and insulin pump (64% vs. 69–77%) uptake, highest diabetes distress (2.2 vs. 1.8–2.1), and highest HbA1c levels (8.3% [67 mmol/mol] vs. 7.2–7.4% [55–57 mmol/mol]).CONCLUSIONSEfforts to increase device use need to target physical barriers to wearing devices. Because young adults had the lowest device uptake rates, highest distress, and highest HbA1c compared with older age-groups, they should be the focus of future interventions to increase device use.

OBJECTIVETo compare three interventions to reduce diabetes distress (DD) and improve self-management among non–clinically depressed adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn REDEEM, 392 adults with T2DM and DD were randomized to computer-assisted self-management (CASM), CASM plus DD-specific problem solving (CAPS), or a computer-administered minimal supportive intervention. Primary outcomes were Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) total, the Emotional Burden (EB) and Regimen Distress (RD) DDS subscales, and diet, exercise, and medication adherence.RESULTSSignificant and clinically meaningful reductions in DD (DDS, EB, and RD) and self-management behaviors occurred in all three conditions (P < 0.001), with no significant between-group differences. There was, however, a significant group × baseline distress interaction (P < 0.02), in which patients with high baseline RD in the CAPS condition displayed significantly larger RD reductions than those in the other two conditions. RD generated the most distress and displayed the greatest distress reduction as a result of intervention. The pace of DD reduction varied by patient age: older patients demonstrated significant reductions in DD early in the intervention, whereas younger adults displayed similar reductions later. Reductions in DD were accompanied by significant improvements in healthy eating, physical activity, and medication adherence, although not by change in HbA1c.CONCLUSIONSDD is malleable and highly responsive to intervention. Interventions that enhance self-management also reduce DD significantly, but DD-specific interventions may be necessary for patients with high initial levels of DD. Future research should identify the minimal, most cost-effective interventions to reduce DD and improve self-management.

No abstract

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.