Premium
Keeping safe. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in persons with Type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia: a qualitative study
Author(s) -
Vloemans A. F.,
van Beers C. A. J.,
de Wit M.,
Cleijne W.,
Rondags S. M.,
GeelhoedDuijvestijn P. H.,
Kramer M. H. H.,
Serné E. H.,
Snoek F. J.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
diabetic medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.474
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1464-5491
pISSN - 0742-3071
DOI - 10.1111/dme.13429
Subject(s) - medicine , thematic analysis , distress , qualitative research , context (archaeology) , randomized controlled trial , diabetes management , type 2 diabetes , blood glucose self monitoring , facilitator , population , coping (psychology) , type 1 diabetes , clinical psychology , continuous glucose monitoring , diabetes mellitus , social psychology , psychology , surgery , social science , paleontology , environmental health , sociology , biology , endocrinology
Aim To further our understanding of individual use and experience of continuous glucose monitoring ( CGM ) in adults with Type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, we conducted a qualitative study supplementary to a randomized controlled trial, using semi‐structured interviews. Methods Twenty‐three participants of the IN CONTROL trial were interviewed within 4 weeks after the last study visit. The interview centred around experiences of CGM , taking into account the person's expectations prior to the trial. The interview was semi‐structured, using open‐ended questions and, if needed, prompts were offered to elicit further responses. Using thematic analysis, the interview transcripts were coded independently by three members of the research team. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research ( COREQ ) were followed. Results Overall, CGM was experienced as helpful in gaining more insight into glucose variability, and temporarily improved sense of control, reduced distress and made participants less dependent on others. However, some participants experienced confrontation with CGM output as intrusive, while some reported frustration due to failing technique and difficulty trusting the device. Participants reported active and passive self‐management behaviours mirroring individual differences in attitudes and coping styles. Conclusions In adults with Type 1 diabetes at risk of recurrent hypoglycaemia due to impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, CGM use enhances a sense of control and safety for most, but not all. Future studies should further explore differential use of CGM in this population in the context of active and passive self‐management styles.