Future acceptance of automated insulin delivery systems in youths with type 1 diabetes: validation of the Italian artificial pancreas-acceptance measure.
AID
Acceptance
Adolescents
Artificial pancreas
CSII
Child
Insulin pump
Technology
Journal
Acta diabetologica
ISSN: 1432-5233
Titre abrégé: Acta Diabetol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9200299
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Aug 2024
10 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
17
03
2024
accepted:
26
06
2024
medline:
10
8
2024
pubmed:
10
8
2024
entrez:
10
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire to examine the future acceptance of Automatic insulin delivery systems (AIDs), their perceived usefulness, ease of use, and trust in the device in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D). A questionnaire in Italian, based on the Technology Acceptance Model, was developed to examine intention to use AIDs, considered as a measure of future acceptance, and its determinants to use the system. A total of 43 questions for children and 46 for parents were included, and a 5-point Likert scale was used. 239 subjects with T1D using multiple daily injections (MDI) or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) and their parents completed the questionnaire. The completion rate was excellent, with almost 100% of items answered. The overall Cronbach's coefficient for children and adolescents was 0.92 and 0.93 for parents, indicating excellent internal consistency in both groups. Parent-youth agreement was 0.699 (95% confidence interval: 0.689-0.709), indicating a good agreement between the two evaluations. Factor analysis identified measurement factors for the "artificial pancreas (AP)-acceptance labeled benefits and hassles of AIDs, and the internal consistency of the total scale was alpha = 0.94 for subjects with T1D and 0.95 for parents. The level of AP acceptance was more than neutral: 3.91 ± 0.47 and 3.99 ± 0.43 (p = 0.07) for youths and parents, respectively (possible score range 1 to 5, neutral score is 3.0). Parents reported higher scores in the benefit items than children-adolescents (p = 0.04). We developed a new questionnaire based on the items available in the literature, and we demonstrated that the "AP-acceptance" reveals a meaningful factor structure, good internal reliability, and agreement between parent-young people evaluations. This measure could be a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers to assess AP acceptance in pediatric patients with T1D and their parents. This patient profiling approach could help to enroll candidates for AIDs with proper expectations and who most likely will benefit from the system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39126517
doi: 10.1007/s00592-024-02327-9
pii: 10.1007/s00592-024-02327-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Zeng B, Gao L, Yang Q, Jia H, Sun F (2023) Automated insulin delivery systems in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 46(12):2300–2307. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-0504
doi: 10.2337/dc23-0504
pubmed: 38011519
pmcid: 10698220
Rabbone I, Minuto N, Bonfanti R, Marigliano M, Cerutti F, Cherubini V, d’Annunzio G, Frongia AP, Iafusco D, Ignaccolo G, Lombardo F, Schiaffini R, Toni S, Tumini S, Zucchini S, Pistorio A, Scaramuzza AE, Italian Paediatric Pump Failure Study Group (2017) Insulin pump failures in Italian children with type 1 diabetes: retrospective 1-year cohort study. Diabet Med 34(5):621–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13294 . E
Franceschi R, Micheli F, Mozzillo E, Cauvin V, Liguori A, Soffiati M, Giani E (2021) Intermittently scanned and continuous glucose monitor systems: a systematic review on psychological outcomes in pediatric patients. Front Pediatr 5:9:660173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.660173
doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.660173
Pauley ME, Berget C, Messer LH, Forlenza GP (2021) Barriers to uptake of insulin technologies and novel solutions. Med Devices (Auckl) 12:14:339–354. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S312858
doi: 10.2147/MDER.S312858
Marigliano M, Pertile R, Mozzillo E, Troncone A, Maffeis C, Morotti E, Di Candia F, Fedi L, Iafusco D, Zanfardino A, Cauvin V, Maltoni G, Zucchini S, Cherubini V, Tiberi V, Minuto N, Bassi M, Rabbone I, Savastio S, Tinti D, Tornese G, Schiaffini R, Passanisi S, Lombardo F, Bonfanti R, Scaramuzza A, Franceschi R (2023) Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring is positively correlated with time in range in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 204:110895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110895
doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110895
pubmed: 37673191
Forlenza GP, Messer LH, Berget C, Wadwa RP, Driscoll KA (2018) Biopsychosocial factors associated with satisfaction and sustained use of artificial pancreas technology and its components: a call to the technology field. Curr Diab Rep 26(11):114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-018-1078-1
doi: 10.1007/s11892-018-1078-1
Elleri D, Acerini CL, Allen JM, Hayes J, Pesterfield C, Wilinska ME, Dunger DB, Hovorka R (2010) Parental attitudes towards overnight closed-loop glucose control in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 12(1):35–39. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2009.0084
van Bon AC, Kohinor MJ, Hoekstra JB, von Basum G, deVries JH (2010) Patients’ perception and future acceptance of an artificial pancreas. J Diabetes Sci Technol 1;4(3):596–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681000400313
van Bon AC, Brouwer TB, von Basum G, Hoekstra JB, DeVries JH (2011) Future acceptance of an artificial pancreas in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 13(7):731–736. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2011.0013
doi: 10.1089/dia.2011.0013
pubmed: 21504332
Troncone A, Bonfanti R, Iafusco D, Rabbone I, Sabbion A, Schiaffini R, Galderisi A, Marigliano M, Rapini N, Rigamonti A, Tinti D, Vallone V, Zanfardino A, Boscari F, Del Favero S, Galasso S, Lanzola G, Messori M, Di Palma F, Visentin R, Calore R, Leal Y, Magni L, Losiouk E, Chernavvsky D, Quaglini S, Cobelli C, Bruttomesso D (2016) Evaluating the experience of children with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in an artificial pancreas clinical trial over multiple days in a diabetes camp setting. Diabetes Care 39(12):2158–2164. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-1073
doi: 10.2337/dc16-1073
pubmed: 27852685
Bevier WC, Fuller SM, Fuller RP, Rubin RR, Dassau E, Doyle FJ 3rd, Jovanovič L, Zisser HC (2014) Artificial pancreas (AP) clinical trial participants’ acceptance of future AP technology. Diabetes Technol Ther 16(9):590–595. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2013.0365
doi: 10.1089/dia.2013.0365
pubmed: 24811147
pmcid: 4135316
Oukes T, Blauw H, van Bon AC, DeVries JH, von Raesfeld AM (2019) Acceptance of the artificial pancreas: comparing the effect of technology readiness, product characteristics, and social influence between invited and self-selected respondents. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(5):899–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818823728
doi: 10.1177/1932296818823728
pubmed: 30646756
pmcid: 6955445
Weissberg-Benchell J, Shapiro JB, Hood K, Laffel LM, Naranjo D, Miller K, Barnard K (2019) Assessing patient-reported outcomes for automated insulin delivery systems: the psychometric properties of the INSPIRE measures. Diabet Med 36(5):644–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13930
doi: 10.1111/dme.13930
pubmed: 30761592
pmcid: 6593869
Marigliano M, Mozzillo E, Mancioppi V, Di Candia F, Rosanio FM, Antonelli A, Nichelatti I, Maffeis C, Tumini S, Franceschi R (2023) Measures of patient-reported expectations, acceptance, and satisfaction using automated insulin delivery systems: a review. J Pers Med 22(7):1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13071031
doi: 10.3390/jpm13071031
Naranjo D, Tanenbaum ML, Iturralde E, Hood KK (2016) Diabetes technology: uptake, outcomes, barriers, and the intersection with distress. J Diabetes Sci Technol 28(4):852–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816650900
doi: 10.1177/1932296816650900
Naranjo D, Tanenbaum ML, Iturralde E, Hood KK (2016) Diabetes Technology: Uptake, outcomes, barriers, and the intersection with distress. J Diabetes Sci Technol 10(4):852–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816650900
doi: 10.1177/1932296816650900
pubmed: 27234809
pmcid: 4928242
Schober P, Bossers SM, Schwarte LA (2018) Statistical significance versus clinical importance of observed effect sizes: what do P values and confidence intervals really represent? Anesth Analg 126(3):1068–1072. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002798
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002798
pubmed: 29337724
pmcid: 5811238
Forlenza GP, Ekhlaspour L, Breton M, Maahs DM, Wadwa RP, DeBoer M, Messer LH, Town M, Pinnata J, Kruse G, Buckingham BA, Cherñavvsky D (2019) Successful at-home use of the tandem control-IQ artificial pancreas system in young children during a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 21(4):159–169. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0011
doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0011
pubmed: 30888835
pmcid: 6909715
Grando MA, Bayuk M, Karway G, Corrette K, Groat D, Cook CB, Thompson B (2019) Patient perception and satisfaction with insulin pump system: Pilot user experience survey. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(6):1142–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296819843146
doi: 10.1177/1932296819843146
pubmed: 31055947
pmcid: 6835185
Hood KK, Garcia-Willingham N, Hanes S, Tanenbaum ML, Ware J, Boughton CK, Allen JM, Wilinska ME, Tauschmann M, Denvir L, Thankamony A, Campbell F, Wadwa RP, Buckingham BA, Davis N, DiMeglio LA, Mauras N, Besser REJ, Ghatak A, Weinzimer SA, Fox DS, Kanapka L, Kollman C, Sibayan J, Beck RW, Hovorka R, DAN05 Consortium (2022) Lived experience of CamAPS FX closed loop system in youth with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Diabetes Obes Metab 24(12):2309–2318. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14815
doi: 10.1111/dom.14815
pubmed: 35837984
pmcid: 9804666
Iturralde E, Tanenbaum ML, Hanes SJ, Suttiratana SC, Ambrosino JM, Ly TT, Maahs DM, Naranjo D, Walders-Abramson N, Weinzimer SA, Buckingham BA, Hood KK (2017) Expectations and attitudes of individuals with type 1 diabetes after using a hybrid closed loop system. Diabetes Educ 43(2):223–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721717697244
doi: 10.1177/0145721717697244
pubmed: 28340542
pmcid: 7162535
Kudva YC, Laffel LM, Brown SA, Raghinaru D, Pinsker JE, Ekhlaspour L, Levy CJ, Messer LH, Kovatchev BP, Lum JW, Beck RW, Gonder-Frederick L, iDCL Trial Research Group (2021) Patient-reported outcomes in a randomized trial of closed-loop control: the pivotal international diabetes closed-loop trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 23(10):673–683. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2021.0089
doi: 10.1089/dia.2021.0089
pubmed: 34115959
pmcid: 8573794
Renard E, Tubiana-Rufi N, Bonnemaison-Gilbert E, Coutant R, Dalla-Vale F, Farret A, Poidvin A, Bouhours-Nouet N, Abettan C, Storey-London C, Donzeau A, Place J, Breton MD (2019) Closed-loop driven by control-to-range algorithm outperforms threshold-low-glucose-suspend insulin delivery on glucose control albeit not on nocturnal hypoglycaemia in prepubertal patients with type 1 diabetes in a supervised hotel setting. Diabetes Obes Metab 21(1):183–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13482
doi: 10.1111/dom.13482
pubmed: 30047223
von dem Berge T, Remus K, Biester S, Reschke F, Klusmeier B, Adolph K, Holtdirk A, Thomas A, Kordonouri O, Danne T, Biester T (2022) In-home use of a hybrid closed loop achieves time-in-range targets in preschoolers and school children: results from a randomized, controlled, crossover trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 24(7):1319–1327. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14706
doi: 10.1111/dom.14706