Perspectives on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in the UK: A Cross-Sectional Survey (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common noncommunicable diseases, requiring ongoing lifestyle changes and continuous glucose management through medication, diet, and physical activity. Traditional self-monitoring of blood glucose can be burdensome, especially with frequent finger pricks. As continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) becomes more affordable and accessible, it offers benefits such as increased glucose awareness, behavioral modifications, and reduced anxiety. However, challenges remain, including cost, discomfort, skin reactions, and privacy concerns. In the United Kingdom, perceptions of CGM among people with T2D, including both users and nonusers, are not well understood, limiting insight into factors influencing adoption and sustained use. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore how adults with T2D perceive the benefits and challenges of using CGM, including both current users and nonusers. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional, online survey using YouGov's nationally representative panel to explore experiences of CGM among adults with T2D in the United Kingdom. A total of 531 participants were recruited from November to December 2024. Thematic analysis of responses to 2 open-ended questions identified key perceived benefits and challenges associated with CGM use. RESULTS: A total of 531 adults with T2D completed the YouGov online survey. Over half were male (297/531, 55.9%) and aged 65 years and older (281/531, 52.9%). Two-thirds (347/531, 65.3%) had lived with T2D for more than 5 years, and 9.6% (51/531) use or had previously used a CGM. Overall, 50.8% (270/531) responded to at least one free-text question, with 49% (260/531) commenting on benefits and 33.1% (176/531) on challenges. Thematic analysis identified five key benefit themes: (1) reduced monitoring burden, described as eliminating frequent finger prick testing and simplifying daily routines; (2) lifestyle feedback, enabling participants to better understand how diet and physical activity influence glucose levels; (3) greater control, by supporting more informed decision-making and increasing confidence in self-management; (4) feeling safer, through alerts for hypo- and hyperglycemia; and (5) sharing data with clinicians, which facilitated communication and more collaborative care. The main challenges were (1) access barriers, including restrictive eligibility criteria and the high cost of self-funding; (2) device issues, such as discomfort, inconvenience, and practical difficulties wearing the sensor; (3) technology reliance, with concerns about depending on devices rather than listening to bodily cues; (4) emotional strain, including anxiety, over-monitoring, and increased preoccupation with glucose levels; and (5) data concerns, particularly regarding accuracy, interpretation, and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with T2D, including both users and nonusers, described CGM as a practical and empowering tool that improves understanding, safety, and collaboration with health care providers. Nevertheless, access barriers, usability issues, and emotional and data-related burdens remain major obstacles to equitable adoption. Addressing these through improved affordability, digital literacy support, and customized clinical guidance may support ongoing and inclusive CGM use in routine care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".