RESCUE Collaborative Community: A New Initiative to Reduce Rates of Intended Self-Injury and Suicide Among People with Diabetes.

Suicide is the leading cause of death among young people aged 20-34 and the second leading cause of death in adolescents aged 15-19. In the general population, among those attempting suicide 7% die by suicide and 23% reattempt with nonfatal consequences. Depression, closely associated with suicidal ideation, is diagnosed in 7%-25% of the United States and European populations. Individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have a two to three times higher prevalence of depression and approximately double the rate of suicide compared to the general population. Rates of self-harm and suicide among people with diabetes are likely to be considerably underestimated due to poor identification. This information is critical to create interventions to decrease rates of suicide and self-harm. This is particularly important in the setting of advanced technologies in T1D, which offer both easier methods of self-injurious behaviors through insulin misuse and can act as identification tools to identify risk insulin behaviors and provide opportunities to develop interventions and prevention efforts in those with depression and suicidal ideation/behavior/acts. To this end, our goal was to identify any literature on coding diabetes correctly in individuals who die by suicide or engage in intentional self-harm. Furthermore, to describe the Reducing Suicide Rates Among Individuals with Diabetes (RESCUE) Collaborative Community and its goals of using multiple approaches to reduce rates of intended self-injury and suicide among people with diabetes. These include detection of cases, understanding support needs, identification of risk factors, and early intervention for individuals at risk.

Cost considerations for adoption of diabetes technology are pervasive: A qualitative study of persons living with type 1 diabetes and their families.

BACKGROUND: Cost is a major consideration in the uptake and continued use of diabetes technology. With increasing use of automated insulin delivery systems, it is important to understand the specific cost-related barriers to technology adoption. In this qualitative analysis, we were interested in understanding and examining the decision-making process around cost and diabetes technology use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four raters coded transcripts of four stakeholder groups using inductive coding for each stakeholder group to establish relevant themes/nodes. We applied the Social Ecological Model in the interpretation of five thematic levels of cost. RESULTS: We identified five thematic levels of cost: policy, organizational, insurance, interpersonal and individual. Equitable diabetes technology access was an important policy-level theme. The insurance-level theme had multiple subthemes which predominantly carried a negative valence. Participants also emphasized the psychosocial burden of cost specifically identifying diabetes costs to their families, the guilt of diabetes related costs, and frustration in the time and involvement required to ensure insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: We found broad consensus in how cost is experienced by stakeholder groups. Cost considerations for diabetes technology uptake extended beyond finances to include time, cost to society, morality and interpersonal relationships. Cost also reflected an important moral principle tied to the shared desire for equitable access to diabetes technology. Knowledge of these considerations can help clinicians and researchers promote equitable device uptake while anticipating barriers for all persons living with type 1 diabetes and their families.

Open Source Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems: A Clash of Cultures or Merging of Diverse Approaches?

Biomedical outcomes for people with diabetes remain suboptimal for many. Psychosocial care in diabetes does not fare any better. "Artificial pancreas" (also known as "closed-loop" and "automated insulin delivery") systems present a promising therapeutic option for people with diabetes (PWD)-simultaneously improving glycemic outcomes, reducing the burden of self-management, and improving health-related quality of life. In recent years there has emerged a growing movement of PWD innovators rallying behind the mantra #WeAreNotWaiting, developing "do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS)." Self-reported results by DIY APS users show improved metabolic outcomes such as impressive stability of glucose profiles, significant reduction of A1c, and more time within their glycemic target range. However, the benefits remain unclear for the broader population of PWD beyond these highly engaged, highly tech-savvy users willing and able to engage in the demands of building and maintaining their DIY APS. We discuss the challenges faced by key stakeholder groups in terms of potential collaboration and open debate of these challenges.

Pre-adolescent children's experiences of receiving diabetes-related support from friends and peers: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While pre-adolescent children with type 1 diabetes receive most support from their parents/caregivers, others also contribute to their care. This study explored pre-adolescent children's experiences of receiving diabetes-related support from friends and peers. The objective was to identify how children could be better supported by their friends and peers to undertake diabetes self-management. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 24 children (aged 9-12 years) with type 1 diabetes. Data were analysed using an inductive, thematic approach. RESULTS: Children gave mixed accounts of their experiences of speaking to their school/class about diabetes with some indicating that this had resulted in unwanted attention. Most individuals reported that other children had a limited understanding of diabetes and sometimes acted in insensitive ways or said things they found upsetting. Virtually all children described having a small number of close friends who were interested in learning about diabetes and provided them with support. These friends provided support in three overlapping ways, as "monitors and prompters," "helpers" and "normalizers." While some children described benefiting from meeting peers with type 1 diabetes, most indicated that they would prefer to develop friendships based on shared interests rather than a common disease status. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Friends and peers provide several kinds of support to pre-adolescent children with diabetes. Health professionals could consider ways to assist small friendship groups to undertake monitoring and prompting, helping and normalizing roles. Parents, schools and health professionals could explore ways to normalize self-management practices to better support children with diabetes in school settings.

Diabetes Technological Revolution: Winners and Losers?

Over recent years there has been an explosion in availability of technical devices to support diabetes self-management. But with this technology revolution comes new hurdles. On paper, the available diabetes technologies should mean that the vast majority of people with type 1 diabetes have optimal glycemic control and are using their preferred therapy choices. Yet, it does not appear to be universally the case. In parallel, suboptimal glycemic control remains stubbornly widespread. Barriers to improvement include access to technology, access to expert diabetes health care professionals, and prohibitive insurance costs. Until access can be improved to ensure the technologies are available and usable by those that need them, there are many people with diabetes who are still losing out.

COPD patient education and support - Achieving patient-centredness.

BACKGROUND: The art of medicine is undergoing a dramatic shift in focus, evolving to focus on patient involvement as partners in care, transforming the traditional, prescriptive, reactive practice of healthcare into a proactive discipline. The personal and societal burden of chronic diseases is burgeoning and unsustainable in current systems, novel approaches are required to address this. DISCUSSION: Although considerable progress has been made in the development of diagnostics, therapeutics and care guidelines for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), questions remain surrounding the implementation of best practice education and support. Current educational programmes, personal limitations and preferences and patient-clinician communication in modification of coping styles and behaviour are discussed. A novel holistic model, the Kaleidoscope Model of Care is proposed to address the barriers to optimal self-care behaviours. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Holistic approaches are essential for optimal self-management and improved outcomes. Guidance on personalised goals for patients to help meeting their therapy priorities is needed to aid healthcare professionals (HCPs) and funders to minimise healthcare burden and costs. The novel KALMOD approach may optimise patient empowerment, exploring whole-life factors that impact COPD care and improve interactions between patients and HCPs for optimised outcomes.

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: Hopes and Expectations of Family Members.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the hopes and expectations that children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes and their families have for new automated insulin delivery systems. The study also aims to examine how the automated insulin delivery system may impact family functioning and individual members' psychosocial adjustment. METHODS: Forty-eight semistructured focus groups (n = 195) and 89 individual interviews were conducted with children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes and parents and partners. Coders reviewed results in key themes most likely to contain references to the family system. Clusters were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify participants' salient hopes and expectations of how new technology may impact family relationships and individual psychosocial functioning. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged for participants' hopes and expectations for implementation of the automated insulin delivery system. First, there is an expectation that this diabetes technology will alleviate diabetes-specific worry and burden for the people with diabetes and other family members. Second, there is also hope that this system may reduce day-to-day stress and, third, improve family relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The unique perspective of a broad age group provides insight into how individuals and families creatively address the multiple tasks required in daily diabetes management. Study findings elucidate the very high hopes and expectations held by those managing type 1 diabetes and the impact this new technology may have on family relationships. Awareness of these hopes and expectations is important for developers and clinicians in addressing potential challenges to uptake and to ensure that expectations are set appropriately.

Acceptability of Implantable Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor.

BACKGROUND: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring is associated with significant benefits for diabetes management. Implantable sensors could overcome some challenges reportedly associated with device visibility, psychosocial functioning and sensor durability. METHODS: A psychosocial assessment was conducted to determine acceptability and impact of an implantable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor as part of the PRECISE trial. Questionnaires were administered to participants comprising the Diabetes Distress Scale, the CGM impact scale, and bespoke device satisfaction. RESULTS: Fifty-one participants across the United Kingdom (n = 10) and Germany (n = 41) completed the questionnaires. Of these, 90% had T1D, 50% followed an insulin pump therapy regimen, and 45% of the participants were previous CGM users. CGM Impact Scale results show 86% (n = 44) of participants reported feeling better (14% neutral) about their diabetes control with 90% CGM naïve participants and 81% previous CGM users reporting increased confidence about their diabetes management. Furthermore, 73% (n = 37) felt more safe (27% neutral) while sleeping and 78% (n = 39) more confident (22% neutral) about avoiding serious hypoglycemia. Responses correspond with an average improvement in HbA1c from 7.51 to 7.05 ( P < .0001) over the 90 days use of the CGM. Overall, the system was rated highly on ease of use, convenience and comfort. 84% would choose to be inserted again with 93% of CGM naïve participants (86% previous CGM users) reporting minimized burden of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Implantable CGM devices are acceptable to users and are evaluated favorably. The considerable majority of participants (93% of first time users and 77% previous CGM users) would like to continue using the system to help manage their diabetes more effectively.

What End Users and Stakeholders Want From Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to rigorously explore psychosocial factors associated with automated insulin delivery systems among people living with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Across four sites in the U.S. and U.K., 284 participants completed structured interviews or focus groups on expectations, desired features, potential benefits, and perceived burdens of automated insulin delivery systems. Recorded audio files were transcribed and analyzed using NVivo. RESULTS: Three themes were identified as critical for uptake of automated insulin delivery: considerations of trust and control, system features, and concerns and barriers to adoption. Children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes primarily identified needs specific to their life stage and social contexts (e.g., school). Adults with type 1 diabetes, parents of youth with type 1 diabetes, and partners of adults with type 1 diabetes were most concerned about the accuracy, adaptability, and algorithm quality alongside expectations that systems stabilize glucose levels and reduce risk for long-term complications. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating stakeholder perspectives on use of automated insulin delivery systems will improve the adoption of devices, quality of life, and likelihood of optimal health. Efforts to build trust in systems, optimize user-system interactions, and provide clear guidance about device capabilities and limitations may help potential users achieve optimal glycemic outcomes.

Closing the Loop in Adults, Children and Adolescents With Suboptimally Controlled Type 1 Diabetes Under Free Living Conditions: A Psychosocial Substudy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to explore psychosocial experiences of closed loop technology for adults, children, and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in two multicenter, free-living, randomized crossover home studies. METHODS: Participants using insulin pump therapy were randomized to either 12 weeks of automated closed-loop glucose control, then 12 weeks of sensor augmented insulin pump therapy (open loop), or vice versa. Closed loop was used for 24 hours by adults and overnight only by children and adolescents. Participants completed the Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ) periodically and shared their views in semistructured interviews. This analysis characterizes the impact of the technology, positive and negative aspects of living with the device, alongside participants' expectations, hopes, and anxieties. RESULTS: Participants were 32 adults, age 38.6 ± 9.6 years, 55% male, and 26 children, mean age 12 years (range 6-18 years), 54% male. DTQ results indicated moderately favorable impact of, and satisfaction with, both open and closed loop interventions, but little evidence of a comparative advantage of either. Key positive themes included perceived improved blood glucose control, improved general well-being, particularly on waking, improved sleep, reduced burden of diabetes, and visibility of data. Key negative themes included having to carry around the equipment and dislike of the pump and second cannula (ie, sensor) inserted. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported a positive experience of the closed loop technology. Results are consistent with previous research with size of equipment continuing to be a problem. Progress is being made in the usability of the closed-loop system.

Parents' information and support needs when their child is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: a qualitative study.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe and explore parents' information and support needs when their child is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, including their views about the timing and chronology of current support provision. Our objective was to identify ways in which parents could be better supported in the future. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 54 parents of children with type 1 diabetes in four paediatric diabetes clinics in Scotland. Data were analysed using an inductive, thematic approach. FINDINGS: Parents described needing more reassurance after their child was diagnosed before being given complex information about diabetes management, so they would be better placed psychologically and emotionally to absorb this information. Parents also highlighted a need for more emotional and practical support from health professionals when they first began to implement diabetes regimens at home, tailored to their personal and domestic circumstances. However, some felt unable to ask for help or believed that health professionals were unable to offer empathetic support. Whilst some parents highlighted a need for support delivered by peer parents, others who had received peer support conveyed ambivalent views about the input and advice they had received. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that professionals should consider the timing and chronology of support provision to ensure that parents' emotional and informational needs are addressed when their child is diagnosed and that practical advice and further emotional support are provided thereafter, which takes account of their day-to-day experiences of caring for their child.

Psychosocial Aspects and Diabetes Technology - Head to Head or Hand in Hand?

Diabetes technologies have progressed rapidly over recent years with a dedicated conference entering its 10th year, stronger and larger than ever. The long-awaited automated insulin delivery systems represent the latest devices in engineering excellence however it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that there is a person at the end of this technology, simply wanting a better life with diabetes with reduced diabetes burden. This commentary explores the relationship between technology and the psychosocial aspects of that technology in the context of user experience, clinical guidelines and the inclusion of psychosocial aspects alongside medical outcomes in research trials.

Glycemic Variability and Its Impact on Quality of Life in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence suggesting that glycemic variability reduces quality of life (QoL) in people with type 2 diabetes, but this association has not been explored in type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether glycemic variability has an impact on QoL in adults with established type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). METHODS: Participants wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor for up to 5 days and completed the diabetes quality of life (DQOL) questionnaire. Glycemic variability measures were calculated using the EasyGV version 9.0 software. A correlation analysis was performed to assess whether there was a relationship between glycemic variability and measures of QoL. RESULTS: In all, 57 participants with type 1 diabetes (51% male, 65% on CSII, 35% on MDI, mean [SD] age 41 [13] years, duration of diabetes 21 [12] years, HbA1c 63 [12] mmol/mol [7.9% (1.1)], body mass index 25.2 [4.0] kg/m(2)) were included in the analysis. No significant associations between glycemic variability and DQOL total or subscale scores were demonstrated. The glycemic variability was significantly higher for MDI participants compared to CSII participants (P < .05 for all glycemic variability measures), but no significant difference in QoL between the 2 treatment modality groups was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CSII is associated with lower glycemic variability compared to MDI. Despite this, and contrary to findings in type 2 diabetes, this study did not find an association between glycemic variability and QoL in adults with relatively well-controlled type 1 diabetes, irrespective of whether they are on MDI or CSII.

PsychDT Working Group: Report Psychosocial Aspects of Artificial Pancreas Systems.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes technology is a cornerstone of diabetes management in the 21st century, with advances in available devices over recent years playing a central role in the way that health care has progressed. Psychosocial interventions have been shown to have a positive impact on glycemic control, reduce psychological distress and reduce costs of health care. Addressing and improving psychosocial outcomes that complement biomedical improvements and looking to the future are crucial to enhance patient acceptance of artificial pancreas (AP) systems. METHODS: To achieve closer collaboration and comparability across different AP research trials, a working group was established. RESULTS: Existing measures fail to adequately capture the extent to which human and psychological factors play a role in the uptake and efficient use of AP systems. Understanding these factors will ultimately lead to the most benefit for users. Reliable measures of the psychosocial impact of AP systems for users is crucial to ensure that (1) regulatory authorities are able to robustly consider these aspects as part of their approval process, (2) government and private payers are able to factor these aspects into their decisions regarding reimbursement, and (3) persons with diabetes maximize benefits in terms of both glycemic control and quality of life to minimize the burden of diabetes in everyday life. CONCLUSIONS: This working group will serve as a platform to foster exchange, identify research needs, and guide and initiate collaborative research laying the groundwork for optimal utilization of diabetes technology in clinical diabetes care. A close collaboration among all key stakeholders is crucial to ensure that devices are designed, trialed, approved, and provided with minimal user burden and maximum beneficial effect.