9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Solutions to Address Inequity in Diabetes Technology Use in Type 1 Diabetes: Results from Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Co-creation Workshops

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Racial–ethnic inequity in type 1 diabetes technology use is well documented and contributes to disparities in glycemic and long-term outcomes. However, solutions to address technology inequity remain sparse and lack stakeholder input.

          Methods:

          We employed user-centered design principles to conduct workshop sessions with multidisciplinary panels of stakeholders, building off of our prior study highlighting patient-identified barriers and proposed solutions. Stakeholders were convened to review our prior findings and co-create interventions to increase technology use among underserved populations with type 1 diabetes. Stakeholders included type 1 diabetes patients who had recently onboarded to technology; endocrinology and primary care physicians; nurses; diabetes educators; psychologists; and community health workers. Sessions were recorded and analyzed iteratively by multiple coders for common themes.

          Results:

          We convened 7 virtual 2-h workshops for 32 stakeholders from 11 states in the United States. Patients and providers confirmed prior published studies highlighting patient barriers and generated new ideas by co-creating solutions. Common themes of proposed interventions included (1) prioritizing more equitable systems of offering technology, (2) using visual and hands-on approaches to increase accessibility of technology and education, (3) including peer and family support systems more, and (4) assisting with insurance navigation and social needs.

          Discussion:

          Our study furthers the field by providing stakeholder-endorsed intervention ideas that propose feasible changes at the patient, provider, and system levels to reduce inequity in diabetes technology use in type 1 diabetes. Multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement in disparities research offers unique insight that is impactful and acceptable to the target population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.

          Approximately 80 million Americans have limited health literacy, which puts them at greater risk for poorer access to care and poorer health outcomes. To update a 2004 systematic review and determine whether low health literacy is related to poorer use of health care, outcomes, costs, and disparities in health outcomes among persons of all ages. English-language articles identified through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Cochrane Library databases and hand-searching (search dates for articles on health literacy, 2003 to 22 February 2011; for articles on numeracy, 1966 to 22 February 2011). Two reviewers independently selected studies that compared outcomes by differences in directly measured health literacy or numeracy levels. One reviewer abstracted article information into evidence tables; a second reviewer checked information for accuracy. Two reviewers independently rated study quality by using predefined criteria, and the investigative team jointly graded the overall strength of evidence. 96 relevant good- or fair-quality studies in 111 articles were identified: 98 articles on health literacy, 22 on numeracy, and 9 on both. Low health literacy was consistently associated with more hospitalizations; greater use of emergency care; lower receipt of mammography screening and influenza vaccine; poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately; poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages; and, among elderly persons, poorer overall health status and higher mortality rates. Poor health literacy partially explains racial disparities in some outcomes. Reviewers could not reach firm conclusions about the relationship between numeracy and health outcomes because of few studies or inconsistent results among studies. Searches were limited to articles published in English. No Medical Subject Heading terms exist for identifying relevant studies. No evidence concerning oral health literacy (speaking and listening skills) and outcomes was found. Low health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes and poorer use of health care services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018

            To provide a snapshot of the profile of adults and youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States and assessment of longitudinal changes in T1D management and clinical outcomes in the T1D Exchange registry.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

              Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Technol Ther
                Diabetes Technol Ther
                dia
                Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
                Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers (140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA )
                1520-9156
                1557-8593
                June 2022
                31 May 2022
                31 May 2022
                : 24
                : 6
                : 381-389
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Fleischer Institute for Diabetes and Metabolism, Albert Einstein College of Medicine-Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA.
                [ 2 ]NY-Regional Center for Diabetes Translation Research, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
                [ 3 ]Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, Bronx, New York, USA.
                [ 4 ]Diagram LLC, New York, New York, USA.
                [ 5 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
                [ 6 ]Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
                Author notes

                This study was presented as an oral presentation at the 81st Virtual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association in June 2021.

                [*]Address correspondence to: Shivani Agarwal, MD, MPH, Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Fleischer Institute for Diabetes and Metabolism, Albert Einstein College of Medicine-Montefiore Medical Center, 1180 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461, USA Shivani.Agarwal@ 123456einsteinmed.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4506-3702
                Article
                10.1089/dia.2021.0496
                10.1089/dia.2021.0496
                9208861
                35138944
                9ca74de5-2d35-4d51-b942-0c4c9b5310ee
                © Shivani Agarwal, et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

                This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License [CC-BY] ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 3, References: 58, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Original Articles

                inequity,disparities,race–ethnicity,minority,diabetes technology,type 1 diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article