No abstract

Objectives This article aims to evaluate adult type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) self-management behaviors (SMBs) related to exercise and alcohol on a survey versus a smartphone app to compare self-reported and self-tracked SMBs, and examine inter- and intrapatient variability. Methods Adults with T1DM on insulin pump therapy were surveyed about their alcohol, meal, and exercise SMBs. For 4 weeks, participants self-tracked their alcohol, meal, and exercise events, and their SMBs corresponding with these events via an investigator-developed app. Descriptive statistics and generalized linear mixed-effect models were used to analyze the data Results Thirty-five participants self-tracked over 5,000 interactions using the app. Variability in how participants perceived the effects of exercise and alcohol on their blood glucose was observed. The congruity between SMBs self-reported on the survey and those self-tracked with the app was measured as mean (SD). The lowest congruity was for alcohol and exercise with 61.9% (22.7) and 66.4% (20.2), respectively. Congruity was higher for meals with 80.9% (21.0). There was significant daily intra- and interpatient variability in SMBs related to preprandial bolusing: recommended bolus, p < 0.05; own bolus choice, p < 0.01; and recommended basal adjustment, p < 0.01. Conclusion This study highlights the variability in intra- and interpatient SMBs obtained through the use of a survey and app. The outcomes of this study indicate that clinicians could use both one-time and every-day assessment tools to assess SMBs related to meals. For alcohol and exercise, further research is needed to understand the best assessment method for SMBs. Given this degree of patient variability, there is a need for an educational intervention that goes beyond the traditional “one-size-fits-all” approach of diabetes management to target individualized treatment barriers.

Background: The goal of this study was to assess patient perspectives and satisfaction with the MiniMed 670G insulin pump. Those participants who used the pump as part of a hybrid closed loop were also asked to provide their views on the automatic feature (auto mode). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus using the Medtronic™ 670G pump were asked about their experience with the device using a semi-structured survey developed by the research team. Responses were quantified to identify emergent themes. Results: Seventeen participants used the pump as part of a hybrid closed loop system, while four participants used the pump in combination with a nonintegrated continuous glucose monitoring system. Overall, participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the pump (14/21) mostly because of improvements in blood glucose (BG) control (15/21). Least liked features were physical design and structure (6/21), frequency of user input (5/21), alert frequency (4/21), and difficulty of use (3/21). Those using the hybrid closed loop were satisfied with the auto mode feature (11/17), mostly because of improvements in BG control (9/17). The least liked features of the auto mode technology were that blood glucose levels remained elevated (5/17) and the frequency of alerts (4/17). Conclusion: Participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the pump and its auto mode featured mostly because of improvements in BG control. They also pointed out some key aspects of the device that are of potential clinical or commercial relevance. Additional research is needed to further evaluate users' perspectives on this new device.

Patients desire greater control over sharing their digital health data. Consent2Share (C2S) is an open-source consent tool offered by SAMHA and the VA to support granular data sharing (GDS) options that align with patient preferences and data privacy regulations. The need to validate this tool exists. We pilot tested C2S with 199 English and Spanish-speaking patients with behavioral health conditions (BHCs) and patient guardians. Data were analyzed using mixed methodology. All participants desired granular control over the sharing of their health data. Most participants (87%) were highly interested in using a tool that offered granular options for executing data sharing decisions, with over half (55%) indicated that being able to specify the data type, data recipient, and data use purpose made them more willing to share their medical records. Majority (83%) indicated that the supported data type sharing categories satisfied their data-sharing privacy preferences. Majority (87%) also reported that knowing the purpose of data use made them more comfortable in sharing. Some participants (28%) accessed the education materials provided on data type sharing options. Patients want granular choices when sharing medical records. Consent2Share and its supported data type sharing categories are adequate to capture patients’ data sharing preferences. Further development is needed before deployment in clinical environments.

ObjectivesTitle 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2 (42 CFR Part 2 or Part 2) was enacted in 1975 to protect patients receiving treatment for substance use disorders. A scoping review on Part 2 characterized published work.MethodsSeven databases were searched. Studies were categorized based on date of publication, primary objectives, methods, and findings. A thematic analysis was conducted using article titles and abstracts.ResultsOf the 36 studies identified, the majority (78%) were opinions or legal reviews, (22%) employed quantitative and/or qualitative methods to study the impact of Part 2, and over half (58%) were published in the past 5 years. Only 8% of studies reported stakeholder involvement in Part 2 studies and no study included patients or patient advocates. No study discussed the efforts to align Part 2 with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or provided evidence of the benefit of this alignment. Three main themes emerged from the review: care delivery (46.6%), law and ethics (27.6%), and technology (25.9%). There were no studies focusing on stigma and its effect on substance use treatment and Part 2.ConclusionsDespite the significance of Part 2, the literature is sparse. It is time to initiate a new era of scholarly research that focuses on the impact of statutes and policies that govern substance use disorder data sharing. Specifically, we recommend research on Part 2 and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act alignment, the effects of Part 2 on patients, as well as providers and other stakeholder perceptions on the regulation.