These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Satisfaction with the Use of Different Technologies for Insulin Delivery and Glucose Monitoring Among Adults with Long-Standing Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycemia: 2-Year Follow-Up in the HypoCOMPaSS Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Author: Speight J, Holmes-Truscott E, Little SA, Leelarathna L, Walkinshaw E, Tan HK, Bowes A, Kerr D, Flanagan D, Heller SR, Evans ML, Shaw JAM.
    Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther; 2019 Nov; 21(11):619-626. PubMed ID: 31335201.
    Abstract:
    Background: In the HypoCOMPaSS trial, adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycemia were randomized to compare insulin pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; CSII) with multiple daily injections (MDI) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) with conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Our aim was to investigate participants' satisfaction with these technologies at 6-month randomized, controlled trial (RCT) endpoint and at 2-year follow-up. Methods: Participants completed the Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire subscales "device delivery" and "hypoglycemia control"; and Glucose Monitoring Experience Questionnaire, assessing "convenience", "effectiveness", "intrusiveness", and "total satisfaction." We assessed change over time and between-group differences by insulin and monitoring modalities. Results: Participants (N = 96) were 64% women, aged 49 ± 12 years, with a diabetes duration of 29 ± 12 years. At 6 months, participants reported improvements compared with baseline (all P < 0.001) in satisfaction with insulin "delivery device" (r = 0.39) and "hypoglycemia control" (r = 0.52), and trends toward significance in perceived "effectiveness" (r = 0.42) and "intrusiveness" (r = 0.27) of monitoring device (but not "convenience", P = 0.139). All improvements were sustained at 2 years. At 6 months, the only difference between arms was that greater satisfaction with insulin "delivery device" was reported in the CSII group compared with MDI (P < 0.001, r = 0.40). No between-group differences were observed at 2 years. Conclusions: Overall, significant improvements in participant satisfaction with diabetes technologies were observed over the 6-month RCT, in all domains except "convenience," and maintained at 2 years. Although HypoCOMPaSS demonstrated noninferiority of SMBG versus CGM, and MDI versus CSII in terms of biomedical outcomes, detailed assessments confirm that participants' satisfaction with delivery device was greater in those allocated to CSII than MDI.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]