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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".