Predictive Factors of the Adherence to Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors: A Prospective Observational Study (PARCS STUDY)

Abstract

Background: Information about factors related to better adherence to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor adherence is quite limited. Materials and Methods: Forty-six participants with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) without CGM were recruited. The participants’ characteristics and diabetes-related quality of life (QOL) were evaluated at baseline and one year after starting to use CGM. Participants wearing the sensor for ≥60% of the time were considered as adherent. Results: The mean age of the 46 participants was 44.1 ± 15.0 years old and the mean glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) was 7.7 ± 1.0%; 60.9% of the participants were classified as adherent. The duration of using CSII was longer in the adherent group, and the degree of diabetic retinopathy was significantly different. There were no significant differences in age, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, or Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS-B for behavior, HFS-W for worry) score at baseline between the adherent and nonadherent groups. The Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) score at baseline was significantly higher and the total CSII-QOL score at baseline was significantly lower in the adherent group. The usage of dual-wave bolus was significantly increased in the adherent group (34.6%-61.5%, P = .016), but not in the nonadherent group (33.3%-33.3%, P > .999). The HbA1c level showed a significant improvement in the adherent group (7.8%-7.3%, P < .001), but not in the nonadherent group (7.5%-7.2%, P = .102). Conclusions: Higher adherence to CGM sensors may be associated with a heavier emotional burden of diabetes and a worse QOL in relation to CSII at baseline.

Protective and risk factors of impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the PR-IAH study

“…Distress related diabetes management was assessed using the PAID questionnaire and high score of ≥ 40 points indicates severe distress [ 19 , 20 ]. The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS) were used to have a fear of hypoglycemia [ 21 , 22 ]. The general utility index was calculated using the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) [ 23 , 24 ].…”

Protective and risk factors of impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: a cross- sectional analysis of baseline data from the PR-IAH study

“…Diabetes-related distress and hypoglycemia problem-solving abilities Distress related diabetes management was assessed using the PAID questionnaire and high score of ≥ 40 points indicates severe distress 19,20 . The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS) were used to have a fear of hypoglycemia 21,22 . The general utility index was calculated using the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) 23,24 .…”

Protective and risk factors of recurrent severe hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the PR-IAH study

“…Higher scores indicate greater diabetes-related distress; a cut-off score of ≥40 indicates high level of distress [26,27]. Fear of hypoglycemia was assessed using the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS), adapted for use in Japan [28,29]. The HFS has two subscales: the HFS-B (behavior subscale) and HFS-W (worry subscale).…”