The Role of Retrospective Data Review in the Personal Use of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Perceived Impact on Quality of Life and Health Outcomes
Publication: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Volume 24, Issue Number 7
Abstract
Background: To explore whether regularly reviewing one's own retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data might be linked with perceived quality of life (QoL) and glycemic benefits.
Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (N = 300) or insulin-using type 2 diabetes (N = 198) using the Dexcom G5 Mobile or G6 Real-Time CGM (RT-CGM) system and receiving the weekly CLARITY summary report of their glucose data completed a survey exploring their use of the report and its perceived value and impact on QoL and glycemic outcomes. Regression analyses examined whether personal use of the report was associated with QoL, perceived glycemic outcomes, and RT-CGM metrics.
Results: The majority reported that receiving and viewing the report contributed to improved hypoglycemic confidence (75.9%) and overall well-being (50.0%), reduced diabetes distress (59.3%–74.1%), and helped to improve A1C (73.1%) and reduce problems with hypoglycemia (61.8%) and chronic hyperglycemia (73.1%). Regularly reviewing the report with family or friends (positive predictor) and doing nothing with the report's information (negative predictor) were independently associated with QoL and perceived glycemic outcomes. Surprisingly, both predictors were also associated with poorer glycemic control (e.g., greater % time above range >180).
Conclusions: These findings suggest that receiving a weekly RT-CGM summary report may contribute to QoL and health benefits, especially if the individual chooses to actively review and make use of the report's findings and openly reviews the findings with family or friends. Prospective studies are needed to more precisely determine how retrospective RT-CGM data summaries can best be presented and utilized effectively by adults with diabetes to enhance health outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1. Scheiner G: CGM retrospective data analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016;18 (Suppl 2):S214–S222.
2. Peters AL, Garg SK: The silver lining to COVID-19: avoiding diabetic ketoacidosis admissions with telehealth. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;22:449–453.
3. Lee V, Thurston T, Thurston S: A comparison of discovered regularities in blood glucose readings across two data collection approaches used with a type 1 diabetic youth. Methods Inf Med 2017;56:e84–e91.
4. Aleppo G, Webb K: Continuous glucose monitoring integration in clinical practice: a stepped guide to data review and interpretation. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019;13:664–673.
5. Wong JC, Neinstein AB, Spindler M, Adi S: A minority of patients with type 1 diabetes routinely downloads and retrospectively reviews device data. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:555–562.
6. Pettus J, Price DA, Edelman SV: How patients with type 1 diabetes translate continuous glucose monitoring data into diabetes management decisions. Endocr Pract 2015;21:613–620.
7. Parker AS, Welsh J, Jimenez A, Walker T: Insights from big data (2): benefits of self-guided retrospective review of continuous glucose monitoring reports. In: Poster ATTD8-0026, presented at the Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes International Conference, 2018.
8. Polonsky WH, Fisher L: When does personalized feedback make a difference? A narrative review of recent findings and their implications for promoting better diabetes self-care. Curr Diabetes Rep 2015;15:620–627.
9. Ritholz MD, Atakov-Castillo A, Beste M, et al.: Psychosocial factors associated with use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabet Med 2010;27:1060–1065.
10. van der Linden J, Welsh JB, Walker TC: Sustainable use of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system from 2018 to 2020. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23:508–511.
11. Akturk HK, Dowd R, Shankar K, Derdzinski M: Real-world evidence and glycemic improvement using Dexcom G6 features. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23(Suppl 1):S21–S26.
12. Polonsky WH, Fortmann AL: Impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring data sharing on quality of life and health outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;23:195–202.
13. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman SV. Investigating hypoglycemic confidence in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017;19:131–136.
14. Fisher L, Polonsky WH, Hessler DM, et al.: Understanding the sources of diabetes distress in adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 2015;29:572–577.
15. Hajos TR, Pouwer F, Skovlund SE, et al.: Psychometric and screening properties of the WHO-5 well-being index in adult outpatients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 2013;30:63–69.
16. Polonsky WH, Fisher L:. Right answer, but wrong question: self-monitoring of blood glucose can be clinically valuable for noninsulin users. Diabetes Care 2013;36:179–182.
17. Wiebe DJ, Helgeson V, Berg CA: The social context of managing diabetes across the life span. Am Psychol 2016;71:526–538.
18. Messer LH, Johnson R, Driscoll KA, Jones J: Best friend or spy: a qualitative meta-synthesis on the impact of continuous glucose monitoring on life with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2018;35:409–418.
19. Soriano EC, Lenhard JM, Gonzalez JS, et al.: Spousal influence on diabetes self-care: moderating effects of distress and relationship quality on glycemic control. Ann Behav Med 2021;55:123–132.
20. Akturk HK, Agarwal S, Hoffecker L, Shah VN: Inequity in racial-ethnic representation in randomized controlled trials of diabetes technologies in type 1 diabetes: critical need for new standards. Diabetes Care 2021;44:e121–e123.
21. Sandig D, Grimsmann J, Reinauer C, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: real-world data from the German/Austrian prospective diabetes follow-up registry. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;22:602–612.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Volume 24 • Issue Number 7 • July 2022
Pages: 492 - 501
PubMed: 35255224
Copyright
Copyright 2022, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
History
Published in print: July 2022
Published online: 29 June 2022
Published ahead of print: 26 April 2022
Published ahead of production: 7 March 2022
Topics
Authors
Authors' Contributions
Study conception/protocol: W.P. and A.F. Statistical analysis: E.S. Interpretation of Data: W.P. and E.S. Article development: W.P. and E.S. All authors read and approved the final article.
Author Disclosure Statement
W.H.P. has served as a consultant for Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care.
Funding Information
This investigator-initiated study was supported by Dexcom.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.