Technology and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Access, Literacy, and Use Among Patients at the Diabetes Center of an Inner-City Safety-Net Hospital: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of an increasing array of digital technologies and tools for diabetes management, there are disparities in access to and uptake and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices, particularly for those most at risk of poor diabetes outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess communication technology and CGM access, literacy, and use among patients receiving treatment for diabetes at an inner-city safety-net hospital. METHODS: A survey on digital technology ownership and use was self-administered by 75 adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes at the diabetes clinic of Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. In-depth interviews were conducted with 16% (12/75) of these patient participants and 6 health care providers (HCPs) to obtain additional insights into the use of communication technology and CGM to support diabetes self-management. RESULTS: Most participants were African American (66/75, 88%), over half (39/75, 52%) were unemployed or working part time, and 29% (22/75) had no health insurance coverage, while 61% (46/75) had federal coverage. Smartphone ownership and use were near universal; texting and email use were common (63/75, 84% in both cases). Ownership and use of tablets and computers and use and daily use of various forms of media were more prevalent among younger participants and those with type 1 diabetes, who also rated them as easier to use. Technology use specifically for diabetes and health management was low. Participants were supportive of a potential smartphone app for diabetes management, with a high interest in such an app helping them track blood sugar levels and communicate with their care teams. Younger participants showed higher levels of interest, perceived value, and self-efficacy for using an app with these capabilities. History of CGM use was reported by 56% (42/75) of the participants, although half (20/42, 48%) had discontinued use, above all due to the cost of the device and issues with its adhesive. Nonuse was primarily due to not being offered CGM by their HCP. Reasons given for continued use included convenience, improved blood glucose control, and better tracking of blood glucose. The in-depth interviews (n=18) revealed high levels of satisfaction with CGM by users and supported the survey findings regarding reasons for continued use. They also highlighted the value of CGM data to enhance communication between patients and HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone ownership was near universal among patients receiving care at an inner-city hospital. Alongside the need to address barriers to CGM access and continued use, there is an opportunity to leverage increased access to communication technology in combination with CGM to improve diabetes outcomes among underresourced populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».