European Survey on Adult People With Type 1 Diabetes and Their Caregivers: Insights into Perceptions of Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a complex condition requiring constant monitoring and self-management. The landscape of diabetes management is evolving with the development of new technologies. This survey aimed to gain insight into the perceptions and experiences of people with T1D (PWD) and their caregivers on the use of technology in diabetes care, and identify future needs for T1D management. Methods: PWD and caregivers (≥18 years) living in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) completed an online survey. Data were collected during July and August 2021. Results: Responders included 458 PWD and 54 caregivers. More than 60% of PWD perceived devices/digital tools for diabetes management as useful and 63% reported that access to monitoring device data made their life easier. Nearly half of participants hoped for new devices and/or digital tools. While approximately one-third of all PWD had used teleconsultation, perceptions and usage varied significantly between countries and by age (both P < .0001), with the lowest use in Germany (20%) and the highest in Spain (48%). The proportions of PWD contributing to diabetes care costs varied by device and were highest for smart insulin pen users at 83% compared with 44% for insulin pen users and 37% for insulin pump users. One-quarter (24%) of PWD and 15% of caregivers felt they lacked knowledge about devices/digital tools for T1D. Conclusions: Most PWD and caregivers had positive perceptions and experiences of new technologies/digital solutions for diabetes management, although improved support and structured education for devices/digital tools are still required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".