A Secondary Data Analysis of Technology Access as a Determinant of Health and Impediment in Social Needs Screening and Referral Processes.

Introduction: Although health systems increasingly integrate social needs screening and referrals into routine care, the effectiveness of these interventions and for whom they work remains unclear. Methods: Patients (N=4,608) seen in the emergency department were screened for social needs (e.g., transportation, housing, food) and offered an opportunity to receive outreach from community service specialists. Results: Among 453 patients with 1 or more social needs who requested assistance, outreach specialists connected with 95 (21.0%). Patients preferred to be contacted through their telephone (n=21, 60.2%), email (n=126, 28.0%), someone else's telephone (n=30, 6.7%), or first by telephone followed by email (n=23, 5.1%). Preferred contact method varied by patient age; endorsement of unmet transportation, housing, and utility needs; receipt of service outreach; and differences in emergency department utilization from the 6 months before the index visit to the 6 months after. Conclusions: Because limited access to a stable telephone or internet connection may prevent patients from connecting with resource referrals, social needs interventions may not benefit the most underserved populations who are at the highest risk of negative health outcomes. Future research should investigate whether communication preferences are an important indicator of needs and how to adapt social needs screening and referral processes so that they are more accessible to populations who may experience more frequent disruptions in methods utilized for digital communication.

Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Data Sharing to Encourage Collaboration Among Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Their Care Partners: Qualitative Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Persons with diabetes use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to self-manage their diabetes. Care partners (CPs) frequently become involved in supporting persons with diabetes in the management of their diabetes. However, persons with diabetes and CP dyads may require more communication and problem-solving skills regarding how to share and respond to CGM data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the experiences of persons with diabetes and CPs who participated in the Share "plus" intervention, which addresses dyadic communication strategies, problem-solving, and action planning to promote sharing of CGM data among the dyad. METHODS: Ten dyads participated in the Share "plus" telehealth intervention. Participants were interviewed during and after the Share "plus" intervention. Thematic analysis was used to analyze interview data. RESULTS: During postsession interviews, dyads described feeling a sense of shared responsibility yet viewed the persons with diabetes as ultimately responsible for the disease. Additionally, dyads shared that communication patterns improved and were able to recognize the negative aspects of previously established communication patterns. Dyads reported communication focused on hypoglycemia episodes while also differing in the frequency they reviewed CGM data and set alerts. Overall, dyads expressed positive reactions to the Share "plus" intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Share "plus" was helpful in promoting positive CGM-related communication among dyads and encouraged more CP support. CPs play an important role in supporting older adults with type 1 diabetes. Communication strategies help support dyad involvement in CGM data sharing and self-management among persons with diabetes.

Continuous glucose monitoring with data sharing in older adults: A qualitative study.

AIMS: This study examined the perceptions of the SHARE plus intervention and its effects on communication, collaboration, and involvement in day-to-day diabetes management in older adults with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their care partners. BACKGROUND: The SHARE plus intervention includes continuous glucose monitoring with a data sharing app that allows care partners to view glucose data on a smartphone and receive alerts. People with T1D and their care partners are educated about communication strategies, problem-solving strategies, and action planning when using glucose data sharing. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive design. METHODS: Older adults with T1D wore a continuous glucose monitor for 3 months (n = 10). Care partners (n = 10) used a data-sharing app. The SHARE plus intervention consisted of one 90-min education session. Semi-structured interviews were conducted across 10 dyads (person with diabetes and care partner) following the 12-week study. A qualitative description and a constant comparison approach were used to examine similarities and differences in experiences. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analysed for common themes. The manuscript adheres to COREQ EQUATOR checklist. RESULTS: The SHARE plus intervention increased diabetes knowledge across the dyads, improving confidence and helping partners understand how to navigate symptoms and behaviours and when to intervene. Dyads worked together to optimise diabetes management through improved communication, collaboration, and management of disagreements. Although the majority of persons with diabetes and their care partners reported no conflictual communication, disagreements about diabetes management remained in some dyads. The SHARE plus intervention impacted care partners in various ways from a psychological perspective. While live-in-care partners felt peace of mind, care partners living away from persons with diabetes had some increased worry and concern. CONCLUSION: The SHARE plus intervention results can help guide future development of diabetes dyadic care and education interventions using diabetes technology. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The SHARE plus intervention is a brief, practical intervention that can help diabetes clinicians improve communication and collaboration among spouses living with older adults with T1D who use continuous glucose monitoring with data sharing. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: A person with diabetes was part of the research team and assisted with design of the intervention and subsequent interviews and analysis.

Financial Barriers in Emerging Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Analysis.

Background: Emerging adulthood is a period fraught with challenging life transitions for many and is especially difficult for individuals with type 1 diabetes, as they encounter more obstacles to independently managing their diabetes. We examined the barriers faced by emerging adults and parents of emerging adults with type 1 diabetes and the impact these barriers had on their lives. Methods: Emerging adults and parents of emerging adults with type 1 diabetes were recruited from primary care and specialty clinics and via social media posts. In the parent study, semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand what supported and did not support diabetes self-management. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for common themes. This sub-analysis analyzed data related to financial challenges in accessing diabetes management equipment and supplies. Results: This study included emerging adults with type 1 diabetes (n = 33; mean age 20 ± 2.9 years) and parents of emerging adults with type 1 diabetes (n = 17; mean age 47.5 ± 6.9 years). The majority of emerging adults used an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring system (n = 24 [73%]). Four main themes emerged related to access to care: 1) affordability of diabetes management tools, 2) managing insurance, 3) communication with pharmacies and health care providers, and 4) emotional consequences of financial stress. Conclusion: The current health system is challenging for emerging adults with type 1 diabetes and parents and is causing substantial emotional and financial stress. Future research is needed to address interventions for helping emerging adults and their parents navigate the cost of living with diabetes.

GoFundMe as a Medical Plan: Ecological Study of Crowdfunding Insulin Success.

BACKGROUND: Individuals in need of medical care turn to crowdfunding websites to engage a "crowd" or group for financial support. In the last decade, access to insulin has decreased considerably for several reasons, including the rising cost of insulin, increasing popularity of high-deductible insurance plans, and increasing insurance premiums. Many people with diabetes are forced to ration or go without insulin, and they turn to crowdfunding websites to seek financial donations to purchase insulin needed to reduce health risks and mortality, and sustain quality of life. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore crowdfunding campaign requests to purchase insulin in the United States. METHODS: In this retrospective, quantitative, and qualitative study, we coded the text of GoFundMe online crowdfunding campaigns and viral measures (shares, hearts, and comments) from February 25 to April 15, 2019. We described campaigns (N=205) and explored the factors associated with campaign success using correlations and qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: The majority of campaigns were initiated by middle-aged adults (age 26-64 years; 77/205, 37.6%), those with type 1 diabetes (94/205, 45.9%), and those needing funds owing to insurance coverage issues (125/205, 61.0%). The factors associated with campaign success included requests for ≤US $500 (P=.007) and higher viral measures (shares, P=.007; hearts, P<.001; comments, P=.002). The following 4 themes emerged from the campaign text: (1) desire for self-management and survival, (2) diabetes management untenable given insulin access, (3) aftermath of insulin unaffordability, and (4) privacy issues with crowdfunding. Campaign comments were both supportive (tangible, informational, and emotional) and unsupportive (questioned the need for the campaign and deemed crowdfunding inappropriate). CONCLUSIONS: Despite crowdfunding websites being used to support the purchase of insulin, campaigns raised only a fraction of the money requested. Therefore, GoFundMe campaigns are not a reliable solution to obtain funds for insulin in the United States. Applying quantitative and qualitative methods is adequate to analyze online crowdfunding for costs of medications such as insulin. However, it is critical for people with diabetes to use resources other than online crowdfunding to access and obtain insulin owing to low success rates. Clinicians should routinely assess difficulty accessing or affording insulin, and federal health care policies should support lowering the cost of insulin.

SHARE plus: Delivering a Telehealth CGM Data-Sharing Intervention to Older Adults and Their Care Partners.

Care partners of older adults with type 1 diabetes often become part of the diabetes care team but lack knowledge of how to become involved with glucose management. This article describes a study confirming the feasibility of SHARE plus, a telehealth intervention involving continuous glucose monitoring and data-sharing to assist these individuals in working together on diabetes management. The intervention provides a strategy for increasing remote patient monitoring and facilitating care partner involvement in diabetes management.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Sharing in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Pilot Intervention Study.

BACKGROUND: Family members or friends (care partners [CPs]) of older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) regularly become part of the diabetes care team, but they often lack knowledge about how to become involved to prevent hypo- and hyperglycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) allows a person with diabetes to see their glucose levels continuously and to receive predictive alerts. A smartphone data-sharing app called the Follow app allows the person with diabetes to share continuous glucose numbers with others and to receive predictive alerts of impending hypo- and hyperglycemia. However, there are barriers to sharing this continuous glucose level data with CPs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address the barriers to sharing CGM data. Our objective was to examine the feasibility of using CGM with the Follow app and a data-sharing intervention called SHARE plus in older adults with T1DM and their CPs. SHARE plus includes dyadic communication strategies, problem-solving strategies, and action planning to facilitate CGM data sharing. METHODS: Older adults with T1DM (n=20) and their CPs (n=20) received the SHARE plus intervention at baseline. People with diabetes wore the CGM for 12 weeks while sharing their glucose data using the Follow app with CPs. Feasibility data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The SHARE plus intervention was feasible and was associated with high self-reported satisfaction for people with diabetes and their CPs as well as high adherence to CGM (mean 96%, SD 6.8%). Broad improvements were shown in the diabetes-related quality of life through the use of CGM in people with diabetes and their CPs. Although the majority of people with diabetes (11/20, 55%) were willing to share hyperglycemia data, several chose not to. The majority of people with diabetes (14/20, 70%) were willing to talk about glucose numbers with a CP. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with T1DM and their CPs identified having someone else aware of glucose levels and working together with a partner on diabetes self-management as positive aspects of the use of the SHARE plus intervention. Clinicians can use these results to provide data sharing coaching in older adults and their CPs.

Who Needs Diabetes Education? A Qualitative Analysis of Emerging Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to explore the diabetes self-management education (DSME) needs of emerging adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) because addressing these needs may facilitate optimal glycemic management during this challenging transitional period. METHODS: A hybrid qualitative design was utilized. Emerging adults and parents of emerging adults were recruited from endocrinology and primary care clinics and through a Utah-specific T1DM online community. Interviews were conducted to asses needs to achieve target A1C. Data were interpreted thematically. RESULTS: Emerging adults with T1DM (N = 33) and parents of emerging adults with T1DM (N = 17) were interviewed. Three main themes emerged: (1) mixed desire for personal DSME; (2) I don't need the education, others do; and (3) health care provider (HCP) attributes that make a difference. Associated subthemes were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging adults reported that further education for themselves was not needed, although newly diagnosed individuals would benefit from increased training in diabetes management. Although many emerging adults had a supportive social network, they endorsed the need for greater public education to avoid diabetes misinformation. Emerging adults felt more connected with HCPs that had diabetes-specific training (ie, endocrinologist) or those who personally live with T1DM.

Couples Managing Type 1 Diabetes Using Diabetes Technology.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes technology has improved the lives of people with diabetes (PWD), but there is little research on how insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) affect couples' relationships. The purpose of this study was to examine how the use of diabetes technology affects couple interactions. METHODS: In a secondary data analysis, we used a multiple-method qualitative analysis, including a constant-comparison approach, to examine similarities and differences in couple interactions related to diabetes technology. PWD and their spouses were interviewed separately, using a semi-structured interview guide; the interviews primarily focused on how couples coped with type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: Participants (n = 134 couples) were using an insulin pump or CGM system. Average age was 44 ± 12.05 years for PWD and 44 ± 12.62 years for spouses. Couples' average length of relationship was 18 ± 12.50 years. Among the PWD, 54 used a pump only, 12 used CGM only, and 68 used both. Four main themes emerged: 1) diabetes technology facilitates shared diabetes management for couples, 2) diabetes technology facilitates spousal involvement in diabetes care, 3) diabetes technology is a source of relationship tension, and 4) diabetes technology causes positive/negative responses to sleep and alarms. CONCLUSION: Overall, couples perceived diabetes technology as having a positive effect on their relationship by increasing collaboration, promoting communication, and reducing diabetes burden and vigilance. Technology also was perceived to increase relationship tension, lifestyle inconveniences, and positive/negative responses regarding sleep and alarms. Involvement of spouses in diabetes technology education should be considered.