Text messaging to enhance glucose monitoring and self-care in teens with type 1 diabetes: Teens' perceptions predict outcomes.

AIMS: We assessed association between how teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceived a text-messaging (TM) reminder system to check glucose levels and how their perceptions related to their responsiveness to TM reminders to check glucose levels. METHODS: Teens received TM reminders 1-4 times daily to check glucose levels and to reply with the result. Qualitative assessments were performed quarterly. Teens were categorized by perceptions expressed at the majority of the visits and their TM responsiveness over 18 months. RESULTS: There were 135 teens (51 % male), with a mean age of 14.8 ± 1.2 years, receiving TM reminders. Distribution of participants' perceptions was 37 % positive (POS), 35 % neutral (with both positive and negative responses (POS/NEG)), and 28 % negative (NEG). Teens with POS perceptions about TM reminders were more likely to respond with a glucose value to the TM reminders than teens with NEG or POS/NEG perceptions (p = 0.002). Youth with POS perceptions and TM responsiveness on ≥ 50 % of days had an 0.81 % improvement in their HbA1c (p = 0.004) over 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Teens with POS perceptions to TM reminders were likely to respond and their responsiveness yielded glycemic benefit, suggesting need to consider opinions of teens with T1D to maximize their intervention engagement and resulting benefits.

Updated Psychosocial Surveys With Continuous Glucose Monitoring Items for Youth With Type 1 Diabetes and Their Caregivers.

AIM: We added items relevant to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to the Diabetes Family Conflict Scale (DFC), Diabetes Family Responsibility Questionnaire (DFR), and Blood Glucose Monitoring Communication Questionnaire (GMC) and evaluated the psychometric properties of the updated surveys. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Youth with type 1 diabetes who recently started CGM and their parents completed the updated surveys and additional psychosocial surveys. Medical data were collected from self-reports and review of the medical record. RESULTS: Youth (N = 114, 49% adolescent girls) were aged 13.3 ± 2.7 years and had mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.9 ± 0.9%; 87% of them used pump therapy. The updated surveys demonstrated high internal consistency (DFC youth: α = .91, parent: α = .81; DFR youth: α = .88, parent: α = .93; and GMC youth: α = .88, parent: α = .86). Higher youth and parent DFC scores (more diabetes-specific family conflict) and GMC scores (more negative affect related to glucose monitoring) were associated with more youth and parent depressive symptoms (r = 0.28-0.60, P ≤ .003), more diabetes burden (r = 0.31-0.71, P ≤ .0009), more state anxiety (r = 0.24 to r = 0.46, P ≤ .01), and lower youth quality of life (r = -0.29 to -0.50, P ≤ .002). Higher youth and parent DFR scores (more parent involvement in diabetes management) were associated with younger youth age (youth: r = -0.76, P < .0001; parent: r = -0.81, P < .0001) and more frequent blood glucose monitoring (youth: r = 0.27, P = .003; parent: r = 0.35, P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: The updated DFC, DFR, and GMC surveys maintain good psychometric properties. The addition of CGM items expands the relevance of these surveys for youth with type 1 diabetes who are using CGM and other diabetes technologies.

Observed Characteristics Associated with Diabetes Device Use Among Teens with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in diabetes technologies, disparities remain with respect to diabetes device use in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We compared sociodemographic, diabetes, and psychosocial characteristics associated with device (pump and continuous glucose monitor [CGM]) use in 13- to 17-year-old teens with T1D. MATERIALS/METHODS: Data were derived from a multicenter clinical trial to optimize self-care and glycemic control in teens with T1D. We categorized teens as pump users versus non-users and CGM users versus non-users based on their diabetes device usage. Chi-square and t-tests compared characteristics according to device use. RESULTS: The sample comprised 301 teens (50% female) with baseline mean ± SD age 15.0 ± 1.3 years, T1D duration 6.5 ± 3.7 years, and HbA1c 8.5 ± 1.1% (69 ± 12 mmol/mol). Two-thirds (65%) were pump users, and 27% were CGM users. Pump users and CGM users (vs. non-users) were more likely to have a family annual household income ≥$150,000, private health insurance, and a parent with a college education (all P < .001). Pump users and CGM users (vs. non-users) also performed more frequent daily blood glucose (BG) checks (both P < .001) and reported more diabetes self-care behaviors (both P < .05). Pump users were less likely to have baseline HbA1c ≥9% (75 mmol/mol) (P = .005) and to report fewer depressive symptoms (P = .02) than pump non-users. Parents of both CGM and pump users reported a higher quality of life in their youth (P < .05). CONCLUSION: There were many sociodemographic, diabetes-specific, and psychosocial factors associated with device use. Modifiable factors can serve as the target for clinical interventions; youth with non-modifiable factors can receive extra support to overcome potential barriers to device use.