A user preference analysis of commercial breath ketone sensors to inform the development of portable breath ketone sensors for diabetes management in young people.

BACKGROUND: Portable breath ketone sensors may help people with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) avoid episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis; however, the design features preferred by users have not been studied. We aimed to elucidate breath sensor design preferences of young people with T1DM (age 12 to 16) and their parents to inform the development of a breath ketone sensor prototype that would best suit their diabetes management needs. RESEARCH DESIGNS AND METHODS: To elicit foundational experiences from which design preference ideas could be generated, two commercially available breath ketone sensors, designed for ketogenic diet monitoring, were explored over one week by ten young people with T1DM. Participants interacted with the breath ketone sensing devices, and undertook blood ketone testing, at least twice daily for five days to simulate use within a real life and ambulatory care setting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted post-testing with the ten young participants and their caregivers (n = 10) to elicit preferences related to breath sensor design and use, and to inform the co-design of a breath ketone sensor prototype for use in T1DM self-management. We triangulated our data collection with key informant interviews with two diabetes educators working in pediatric care about their perspectives related to young people using breath ketone sensors. RESULTS: Participants acknowledged the non-invasiveness of breath sensors as compared to blood testing. Affordability, reliability and accuracy were identified as prerequisites for breath ketone sensors used for diabetes management. Design features valued by young people included portability, ease of use, sustainability, readability and suitability for use in public. The time required to use breath sensors was similar to that for blood testing. The requirement to maintain a 10-second breath exhalation posed a challenge for users. Diabetes educators highlighted the ease of use of breath devices especially for young people who tended to under-test using blood ketone strips. CONCLUSIONS: Breath ketone sensors for diabetes management have potential that may facilitate ketone testing in young people. Our study affirms features for young people that drive usability of breath sensors among this population, and provides a model of user preference assessment.

A framework for involving coproduction partners in research about young people with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Involvement of end-users in research can enhance its quality, relevance, credibility and legitimacy; however, the processes through which these changes occur are unclear. Our aim was to explore a coproduction research team's experiences of their involvement in research about young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews conducted with two young people with T1DM, two parents, one diabetes educator, one endocrinologist-scientist and one research-engineer explored experiences of coproduction research and its impact on both the research and the participants. Drawing on grounded theory, we undertook inductive analysis and storyline mapping to develop a theorized framework of mechanisms supporting the process of coproduction in T1DM research with young people. FINDINGS: The framework involving coproduction partners in research about young people with type 1 diabetes centres on the unique expertize that different team members bring to the research and describes conditions that enable expert contributions through the enactment of a variety of expert roles. The framework also describes outcomes-the impact of the expert contributions on both the research and the team members involved. CONCLUSION: The findings of this small exploratory study provide a sound foundation to develop further understanding about structures and processes that are integral for the success of coproduction research teams. The framework may provide a guide for researchers planning to incorporate coproduction, on elements that are important for this model of research to succeed. It may also inform coproduction impact assessment research and be used for hypothesis testing and expansion in future studies.

The current understanding of precision medicine and personalised medicine in selected research disciplines: study protocol of a systematic concept analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The terms 'precision medicine' and 'personalised medicine' have become key terms in health-related research and in science-related public communication. However, the application of these two concepts and their interpretation in various disciplines are heterogeneous, which also affects research translation and public awareness. This leads to confusion regarding the use and distinction of the two concepts. Our aim is to provide a snapshot of the current understanding of these concepts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our study will use Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis to systematically examine the current understanding of the concepts 'precision medicine' and 'personalised medicine' in clinical medicine, biomedicine (incorporating genomics and bioinformatics), health services research, physics, chemistry, engineering, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and to identify their respective attributes (clusters of characteristics) and surrogate and related terms. A systematic search of the literature will be conducted for 2016-2022 using databases relevant to each of these disciplines: ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, F1000Research, IEEE Xplore, PubMed/Medline, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science. These are among the most representative databases for the included disciplines. We will examine similarities and differences in definitions of 'precision medicine' and 'personalised medicine' in the respective disciplines and across (sub)disciplines, including attributes of each term. This will enable us to determine how these two concepts are distinguished. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Following ethical and research standards, we will comprehensively report the methodology for a systematic analysis following Rodgers' concept analysis method. Our systematic concept analysis will contribute to the clarification of the two concepts and distinction in their application in given settings and circumstances. Such a broad concept analysis will contribute to non-systematic syntheses of the concepts, or occasional systematic reviews on one of the concepts that have been published in specific disciplines, in order to facilitate interdisciplinary communication, translational medical research and implementation science.

Managing type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic is a team effort: a qualitative study of the experiences of young people and their parents.

Objective: To explore the experiences of young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and their parents in accessing integrated family-centred care in the Australian Capital Territory during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and analysis: This is a pragmatic, qualitative descriptive study for which we conducted semistructured interviews with 11 young people with T1DM aged 12-16 years and 10 of their parents who attended an outpatient diabetes service in Canberra, Australia. Thematic analysis was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined by Braun and Clarke. Results: Three themes were identified: feeling vulnerable, new ways of accessing care and trust in the interdisciplinary diabetes healthcare team. Participants believed having T1DM made them more vulnerable to poor outcomes if they contracted COVID-19, resulting in avoidance of face-to-face care. Telephone consultations offered a convenient and contact-free way to undertake 3-monthly reviews. The greatest difference between telephone and face-to-face consultations was not having access to the whole interdisciplinary diabetes support team at one appointment, physical examination and haemoglobin A1c testing during telehealth consultations. Participants trusted that clinicians would arrange face-to-face meetings if required. Some felt a video option might be better than telephone, reflecting in part the need for more training in communication skills for remote consultations. Conclusion: Young people with T1DM and their parents require collaborative care and contact with multiple healthcare professionals to facilitate self-management and glycaemic control. While telephone consultations offered convenient, safe, contact-free access to healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, the added value of video consultations and facilitating access to the whole interdisciplinary diabetes support team need to be considered in future clinical implementation of telehealth.