Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring is associated with quality of life in young people with type 1 diabetes regardless of metabolic control and treatment type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: While continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and associated technologies have positive effects on metabolic control in young people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), less is known about their impact on quality of life (QoL). Here, we quantified CGM satisfaction and QoL in young people with T1D and their parents/caregivers to establish (i) the relationship between QoL and CGM satisfaction and (ii) the impact of the treatment regimen on QoL. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of children and adolescents with T1D on different treatment regimens (multiple daily injections, sensor-augmented pumps and automated insulin delivery). QoL was assessed with the KINDL instrument, and CGM satisfaction with the CGM-SAT questionnaire was evaluated in both youths with T1D and their parents. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten consecutively enrolled youths with T1D completed the KINDL and CGM-SAT questionnaires. The mean total KINDL score was greater than neutral in both subjects with T1D (3.99 ± 0.47) and parents (4.06 ± 0.40), and lower overall CGM-SAT scores (i.e., higher satisfaction) were significantly associated with higher QoL in all six KINDL subscales (p < 0.05). There were no differences in KINDL scores according to delivery technology or when participants were grouped according to optimal and sub-optimal glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: Higher satisfaction with recent CGMs was associated with better QoL in all dimensions. QoL was independent of both the insulin delivery technology and glycaemic control. CGM must be further disseminated. Attention on perceived satisfaction with CGM should be incorporated with the clinical practice to improve the well-being of children and adolescents with T1D and their families.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".