ORIGINAL PAPER
Preferences of type 1 diabetes individuals for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system features
More details
Hide details
1
Student Scientific Circle at the Department of Children’s Diabetology and Lifestyle Medicine, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
2
Department of Children’s Diabetology and Lifestyle Medicine, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
These authors had equal contribution to this work
Submission date: 2024-12-05
Final revision date: 2025-06-13
Acceptance date: 2025-06-15
Publication date: 2025-09-24
Pediatr Pol 2025;61(3):203-208
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems have become a key tool in diabetes therapy, enabling patients to monitor glucose levels in real-time. This study aimed to identify the most important features of CGM systems for people with diabetes (PwD).
Material and methods:
A survey conducted by a research team consisting of diabetologists, psychologists, and diabetic patients was addressed to PwD to explore their preferences for CGM systems. The study was conducted from March 24 to April 15, 2023. Study group consisted of Facebook users of forums related to diabetology and CGM systems. Also, PwD or their caregivers, who attended appointments at the diabetic clinic of Upper Silesian Child Health Centre in Katowice, Poland, were included. A total of 498 correctly completed surveys were collected, and data were analyzed in terms of financial aspects, sensor replacement frequency, calibration, compatibility with other devices, notifications, and system size.
Results:
According to the results, financial structure of CGM systems users varied, with parents and younger patients more likely to choose higher monthly expenses (56.2%). A preference was noted for sensor replacement every 14 days (59.4%) and calibration-free systems (75.7%). The system was highly preferred for integration with smartphone apps (95.2%) and compatibility with insulin pumps (65.3%). In addition, notifications of current glucose levels were considered a key feature of a CGM system, with most users preferring glucose variability alerts (96.8%).
Conclusions:
Patients select CGM systems based on their personal needs and preferences, prioritizing features, such as user-friendliness, smartphone compatibility, sensor lifespan, and ability to share data with caregivers. Also, cost, design, and clinical benefits influence their choices.
REFERENCES (21)
1.
Cappon G, Vettoretti M, Sparacino G, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring sensors for diabetes management: a review of technologies and applications. Diabetes Metab J 2019; 43: 383-397.
2.
Lin R, Brown F, James S, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of the evidence in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 2021; 38: e14528. DOI: 10.1111/dme.14528.
3.
Dupenloupa P, Pei RL, Chang A, et al. A model to design financially sustainable algorithm-enabed remote patient monitoring for pediatric typ 1 diabetes care. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2022; 13: 1021982. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1021982.
4.
Jiao Y, Lin R, Hua X, et al. A systematic review: cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab 2022; 5: e369. DOI: 10.1002/edm2.369.
5.
Lomax KE, Taplin CE, Abraham MB, et al. Socioeconomic status and diabetes technology use in youth with type 1 diabetes: a comparison of two funding model. Front Endocrinol (Lausan) 2023; 14: 1178958. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1178958.
6.
Heinemann L, DeVries JH. Reimbursement for continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016; 18 Suppl 2: S248-S252. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2015.0296.
7.
Alva S, Bailey T, Brazg R, et al. Accuracy of a 14-day factory-calibrated continuous glucose monitoring system with advanced algorithm in pediatric and adult population with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2022; 16: 70-77.
8.
Aronson R, Abitbol A, Tweden KS. First assessment of the performance of an implantable continuous glucose monitoring system through 180 days in a primarily adolescent population with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2019; 21: 1689-1694.
9.
Zielger R. Analysis of “performance of a factory-calibrated, real- time continuous glucose monitoring system in pediatric participants with type 1 diabetes”. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13: 259-260.
10.
Esvant A. Lafebvre MA, Campillo-Gimenez B, et al. A mobile application guiding patients with type 1 diabetes using sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10: 985-986.
11.
Feuerstein-Simon C, Bzdick S, Padmanabhuni A, et al. Use of a smartphone application to reduce hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12: 1192-1199.
12.
Allen NA, Litchman ML. Neller S, et al. Couples managing type 1 diabetes using diabetes technology. Diabetes Spectr 2021; 34: 378-387.
13.
Polonsky WH, Fortmann AL. Impact of real-time CGM data sharing on quality of life in the caregivers of adults and children with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2022; 16: 97-105.
14.
Sklar J, Pyle L, Snell-Bergeon JK, et al. Glycemic variability and indices of glycemic control among pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) based on the use of continuous glucose monitoring share technology. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35: 8968-8974.
15.
Rusak E, Ogarek N, Wolicka K, et al. The quality of life and satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring therapy in children under 7 years of age with T1D using the rtCGM system integrated with insulin pump – a caregivers point of view. Sensors (Basel) 2021; 21: 3683. DOI: 10.3390/s21113683.
16.
Miller E, Midyett LK. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should… now. A practical approach to counseling persons with diabetes on use of optional CGM alarms. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021; 23(S3): S66-S71. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2021.0192.
17.
Fleischer J, Hansen TK, Cichosz SL. Hypoglycemia event prediction from CGM using ensemble learning. Front Clin Diabetes Healthc 2022; 3: 1066744. DOI: 10.3389/fcdhc.2022.1066744.
18.
Strategies to Enhance New CGM Use in Early Childhood (SENCE) Study Group. A randomized clinical trial assessing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use with standardized education with or without a family behavioral intervention compared with fingerstick blood glucose monitoring in very young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2021; 44: 464-472.
19.
Verbeeten KC, Trejo MEP, Tang K, et al. Fear of hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents: effect of pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring with option of low glucose suspend in the CGM TIME trial. Pediatr Diabetes 2021; 22: 288-293.
20.
Robertson C, Lin A, Smith G, et al. The impact of externally worn diabetes technology on sexual behavior and activity, body image, and anxiety in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2020; 14: 303-308.
21.
Ramchandani N, Arya S, Ten S, et al. Real-life utilization of real-time continuous glucose monitoring: the complete picture. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011; 5: 860-870.