RSS-Feed abonnieren
![](/products/assets/desktop/img/oa-logo.png)
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1701022
Data-Driven Diabetes Education Guided by a Personalized Report for Patients on Insulin Pump Therapy
Publikationsverlauf
11. März 2019
16. Dezember 2019
Publikationsdatum:
06. Februar 2020 (online)
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00034447/202001/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-s-0039-1701022_190015oa-1.jpg)
Abstract
Objective It is difficult to assess self-management behaviors (SMBs) and incorporate them into a personalized self-care plan. We aimed to develop and apply SMB phenotyping algorithms from data collected by diabetes devices and a mobile health (mHealth) application to create patient-specific SMBs reports to guide individualized interventions. Follow-up interventions aimed to understand patient's reasoning behind discovered SMB choices.
Methods This study deals with adults on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) who self-tracked SMBs with an mHealth application for 1 month. Patient-generated data were quantified and an SMB report was designed and populated for each participant. A diabetes educator used the report to conduct personalized, data-driven educational interventions. Thematic analysis of the intervention was conducted.
Results Twenty-two participants recorded 118 alcohol, 251 exercise, 2,661 meal events, and 1,900 photos. A patient-specific SMB report was created from this data and used to conduct the educational intervention. High variability of SMB was observed between patients. There was variability in the percentage of alcohol events accompanied by a blood glucose check, median 79% (38–100% range), and frequency of changing the bolus waveform, median 11 (7–95 range). Interventions confirmed variability of SMBs. Main emerging themes from thematic analysis were: challenges and barriers, motivators, current SMB techniques, and future plans to improve glycemic control.
Conclusion The ability to quantify SMBs and understand patients' rationale may help improve diabetes self-care and related outcomes. This study describes our first steps in piloting a patient-specific diabetes educational intervention, as opposed to the current “one size fits all” approach.
Keywords
type 1 diabetes - phenotype - smartphone - diabetes mellitus - self-care - mhealth - patients with chronic illnessProtection of Human and Animal Subjects
This study was reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Arizona and Arizona State University Institutional Review Boards.
-
References
- 1 American Diabetes Association. 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of medical care in diabetes 2018. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl. 01) S73-S85
- 2 Rhee MK, Slocum W, Ziemer DC. , et al. Patient adherence improves glycemic control. Diabetes Educ 2005; 31 (02) 240-250
- 3 Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J. , et al; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 329 (14) 977-986
- 4 Geller AI, Shehab N, Lovegrove MC. , et al. National estimates of insulin-related hypoglycemia and errors leading to emergency department visits and hospitalizations. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174 (05) 678-686
- 5 Hendricks M, Monaghan M, Soutor S, Chen R, Holmes CS. A profile of self-care behaviors in emerging adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2013; 39 (02) 195-203
- 6 Guilfoyle SM, Crimmins NA, Hood KK. Blood glucose monitoring and glycemic control in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: meter downloads versus self-report. Pediatr Diabetes 2011; 12 (06) 560-566
- 7 Pettus J, Price DA, Edelman SV. How patients with type 1 diabetes translate continuous glucose monitoring data into diabetes management decisions. Endocr Pract 2015; 21 (06) 613-620
- 8 Beverly EA, Ganda OP, Ritholz MD. , et al. Look who's (not) talking: diabetic patients' willingness to discuss self-care with physicians. Diabetes Care 2012; 35 (07) 1466-1472
- 9 Driscoll KA, Wang Y, Bennett Johnson S. , et al. White coat adherence in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes who use insulin pumps. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10 (03) 724-729
- 10 Driscoll KA, Johnson SB, Hogan J, Gill E, Wright N, Deeb LC. Insulin bolusing software: the potential to optimize health outcomes in type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013; 7 (03) 646-652
- 11 O'Connell MA, Donath S, Cameron FJ. Poor adherence to integral daily tasks limits the efficacy of CSII in youth. Pediatr Diabetes 2011; 12 (06) 556-559
- 12 Patton SR, Clements MA, Fridlington A, Cohoon C, Turpin AL, Delurgio SA. Frequency of mealtime insulin bolus as a proxy measure of adherence for children and youths with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther 2013; 15 (02) 124-128
- 13 Carlson AL, Mullen DM, Bergenstal RM. Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19 (S2): S4-S11
- 14 Haviland N, Walsh J, Roberts R, Bailey TS. Update on clinical utility of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 2016; 16 (11) 115
- 15 Tao D, Yuan J, Qu X. Presenting self-monitoring test results for consumers: the effects of graphical formats and age. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (08) 1036-1046
- 16 Gandhi K, Vu BK, Eshtehardi SS, Wasserman RM, Hilliard ME. Adherence in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: strategies and considerations for assessment in research and practice. Diabetes Manag (Lond) 2015; 5 (06) 485-498
- 17 Ziegler R, Rees C, Jacobs N. , et al. Frequent use of an automated bolus advisor improves glycemic control in pediatric patients treated with insulin pump therapy: results of the Bolus Advisor Benefit Evaluation (BABE) study. Pediatr Diabetes 2016; 17 (05) 311-318
- 18 Herbert LJ, Sweenie R, Kelly KP, Holmes C, Streisand R. Using qualitative methods to evaluate a family behavioral intervention for type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr Health Care 2014; 28 (05) 376-385
- 19 Grando MA, Groat D, Soni H. , et al. Characterization of exercise and alcohol self-management behaviors of type 1 diabetes patients on insulin pump therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11 (02) 240-246
- 20 Groat D, Grando MA, Soni H. , et al. Self-management behaviors in adults on insulin pump therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11 (02) 233-239
- 21 Groat D, Soni H, Grando MA, Thompson B, Cook CB. Self-reported compensation techniques for carbohydrate, exercise, and alcohol behaviors in patients with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12 (02) 412-414
- 22 Karway G, Grando MA, Grimm K, Groat D, Cook CB, Thompson B. Self-management behaviors of patients with type 1 diabetes: comparing two sources of patient-generated data. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (01) 70-78
- 23 Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect 2006; 9 (01) 25-36
- 24 Groat D, Soni H, Grando MA, Thompson B, Kaufman D, Cook CB. Design and testing of a smartphone application for real-time self-tracking diabetes self-management behaviors. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (02) 440-449
- 25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measuring physical activity intensity [Internet]. CDC 24/7: saving lives, protecting people; 2015 . Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/index.html . Accessed June 7, 2018
- 26 Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3 (02) 77-101
- 27 Grando MA, Bayuk M, Karway G. , et al. Patient perception and satisfaction with insulin pump system: pilot user experience survey. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13 (06) 1142-1148
- 28 Patton SR, Driscoll KA, Clements MA. Adherence to insulin pump behaviors in young children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11 (01) 87-91
- 29 Martyn-Nemeth P, Duffecy J, Fritschi C, Quinn L. Challenges imposed by hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Clin Nurs Res 2019; 28 (08) 947-967
- 30 Laranjo L, Neves AL, Costa A, Ribeiro RT, Couto L, Sá AB. Facilitators, barriers and expectations in the self-management of type 2 diabetes—a qualitative study from Portugal. Eur J Gen Pract 2015; 21 (02) 103-110
- 31 Ritholz MD, Beverly EA, Weinger K. Digging deeper: the role of qualitative research in behavioral diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 2011; 11 (06) 494-502
- 32 Abdoli S, Hardy LR, Hall J. The complexities of “Struggling to Live Life”. Diabetes Educ 2017; 43 (02) 206-215
- 33 Kent DA, Quinn L. Factors that affect quality of life in young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2018; 44 (06) 501-509
- 34 Glooko, Inc. Glooko [Internet]. Diabetes remote monitoring. 2018 . Available at: https://www.glooko.com/ . Accessed January 29, 2018
- 35 Tidepool. Tidepool [Internet]. Liberate your data. Available at: https://tidepool.org/ . Accessed January 30, 2018
- 36 Epic Systems Corporation. Epic [Internet]. Available at: https://www.epic.com/ . Accessed October 2, 2018
- 37 Kumar RB, Goren ND, Stark DE, Wall DP, Longhurst CA. Automated integration of continuous glucose monitor data in the electronic health record using consumer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (03) 532-537
- 38 Barbarin AM, Klasnja P, Veinot TC. Good or bad, ups and downs, and getting better: use of personal health data for temporal reflection in chronic illness. Int J Med Inform 2016; 94: 237-245
- 39 Ancker JS, Witteman HO, Hafeez B, Provencher T, Van de Graaf M, Wei E. “You Get Reminded You're a Sick Person”: personal data tracking and patients with multiple chronic conditions. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (08) e202
- 40 Nelson LA, Coston TD, Cherrington AL, Osborn CY. Patterns of user engagement with mobile- and web-delivered self-care interventions for adults with T2DM: a review of the literature. Curr Diab Rep 2016; 16 (07) 66