Equity of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Children and Young People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic inequalities in type 1 diabetes (T1D) outcomes are well‐established. There is concern that unequal access to technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), may increase disparities. This systematic review summarises the evidence for inequalities in the prevalence of CGM use for children and young people (CYP) and outcomes for CGM users. Methods: Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched for observational studies published between January 2000 and July 2023 which report CGM use stratified by any PROGRESS‐Plus criteria for T1D patients under 26. Reports based in low‐ or middle‐income countries, ≤500 participants or only reporting hybrid closed‐loop systems were excluded. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients using CGM and HbA1c of CGM users. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Unadjusted odds ratios were calculated from the extracted summary data, though heterogeneity precluded meta‐analysis. The protocol was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42023438139). Results: Of the 3369 unique studies identified, 27 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty‐three percent were of ‘good’ or ‘very good’ quality. We found decreased CGM use and higher discontinuation for low SES, low education, publicly insured and minority ethnic, especially Black, CYP. These associations were generally robust to adjustment for other sociodemographic variables, suggesting an independent effect. Lower SES inequalities were seen in countries where CGM is reimbursed. Although low SES and minority ethnicity were associated with poorer outcomes in general, for CGM users there was no significant association between domains of disadvantage and higher HbA1c, excepting parental education. Conclusions: There are significant SES, ethnic and education inequalities in CGM use for CYP with T1D, particularly when reimbursement is limited. This inequity is contributing to inequalities in T1D outcomes. However, evidence suggests CYP benefit equally from CGM use, irrespective of ethnicity and SES. Increasing CGM funding and use is likely to reduce outcome inequalities.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".