Exposure to Closed Loop Barriers Using Virtual Reality.

BACKGROUND: Closed loop (CL) automated insulin delivery systems are demonstrated to be safe and effective in regulating glucose levels and reducing cognitive burden in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, given the limited market options and the do-it-yourself nature of most systems, it can be difficult for potential users to shape their expectations fitting them into daily lives and management routines. As such, we examined the potential feasibility of a virtual reality (VR) intervention. METHODS: A four-part VR intervention was created to expose adults with T1D to expected CL system barriers: body image, perceived hassles of using CL, deskilling fears, and unwanted social attention. Goals of the pilot were to assess feasibility and expose patients to CL. Surveys were conducted pre- and postparticipating in the VR experience. RESULTS: A total of 20 adults with T1D completed the pilot. Average time to complete the experience was 14.1 minutes (8.8-39.9). Reported VR sickness was low. Willingness to use VR was maintained in 90% (n = 18) and did not change expectations of CL in 95% (n = 19). Virtual reality changed perceived hassles of CL in 25% (n = 5) with four concerned over alarms and one connectivity issues: positive diabetes technology attitudes, confidence in managing hypoglycemia, overall perceptions of appearance, and positive affect maintained after the VR intervention. Negative affect significantly decreased after exposure and perceptions of being overweight trended toward significance. CONCLUSION: This pilot VR intervention demonstrated high potential in addressing expected barriers to uptake and usage of CL systems without decreasing enthusiasm or changing expectations of CL.

Using Cluster Analysis to Understand Clinician Readiness to Promote Continuous Glucose Monitoring Adoption.

BACKGROUND: Many people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) report barriers to using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Diabetes care providers may have their own barriers to promoting CGM uptake. The goal of this study was to develop clinician "personas" with regard to readiness to promote CGM uptake. METHODS: Diabetes care providers who treat people with T1D (N = 209) completed a survey on perceived patient barriers to device uptake, technology attitudes, and characteristics and barriers specific to their clinical practice. K-means cluster analyses grouped the sample by CGM barriers and attitudes. ANOVAs and chi-square tests assessed group differences on provider and patient characteristics. The authors assigned descriptive names for each persona. RESULTS: Analyses yielded three clinician personas regarding readiness to promote CGM uptake. Ready clinicians (20% of sample; 24% physicians, 38% certified diabetes educators/CDEs) had positive technology attitudes, had clinic time to work with patients using CGM, and found it easy to keep up with technology advances. In comparison, Cautious clinicians (41% of sample; 17% physicians, 53% CDEs) perceived that their patients had many barriers to adopting CGM and had less time than the Ready group to work with patients using CGM data. Not Yet Ready clinicians (40% of sample; 9% physicians; 79% CDEs) had negative technology attitudes and the least clinic time to work with CGM data. They found it difficult to keep up with technology advances. CONCLUSION: Some diabetes clinicians may benefit from tailored interventions and additional time and resources to empower them to help facilitate increased uptake of CGM technology.