Advertisement

Current Diabetes Reports

, 19:111 | Cite as

Has Technology Improved Diabetes Management in Relation to Age, Gender, and Ethnicity?

  • Leslie Eiland
  • Thiyagarajan Thangavelu
  • Andjela DrincicEmail author
Lifestyle Management to Reduce Diabetes/Cardiovascular Risk (B Conway and H Keenan, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Lifestyle Management to Reduce Diabetes/Cardiovascular Risk

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To review the current state of diabetes technology adoption and describe impact on outcomes in the context of age, gender, and ethnicity. We will discuss barriers and propose solutions that may help facilitate the adoption.

Recent Findings

We are witnessing rapid evolution and increase in adoption of diabetes technology in all its forms, including insulin delivery and glucose monitoring devices, mobile medical applications, and telemedicine. This technology has a great potential to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including acute and chronic complications as well as quality of life for people living with diabetes. However, currently available outcome data are showing modest efficacy and evidence for disparities when it comes to age, gender, and ethnicity.

Summary

Despite multiple barriers, the adoption of technology is steadily increasing. It is clear that disparities exist in terms of access to and use of technology, but they may be at least in part driven by unmet needs of end users and as such are not unsurmountable. While more research is needed to identify the specific causes for the disparities, future development of diabetes technology that is based on adaptation of behavioral theories has a potential to address the gaps. The disparities can be lessened by understanding the needs of end users and with improvement in personalization of technology, allowing the right device to be used by the right patient. Targeted interventions to increase awareness and education and help navigate the processes involved in currently available technology may help diminish the gaps in health equity.

Keywords

Diabetes Health disparities Age Technology Ethnicity Gender 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Leslie Eiland and Thiyagarajan Thangavelu declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Andjela Drincic reports being on the advisory board for CORCEPT national advisory board.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Anonymous Telehealth Basics. https://www.americantelemed.org/resource/why-telemedicine/. Accessed July 10 2019.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Diabetes Association. Diabetes technology: standards of medical care in diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:S71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lin MH, Connor CG, Ruedy KJ, Beck RW, Kollman C, Buckingham B, et al. Race, socioeconomic status, and treatment center are associated with insulin pump therapy in youth in the first year following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15:929–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chait J (2014) Insulin pumps. https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/diabetes-resources/tools-tech/insulin-pumps/. Accessed 24 August 2019.
  5. 5.
    Tanenbaum ML, Hanes SJ, Miller KM, Naranjo D, Bensen R, Hood KK. Diabetes device use in adults with type 1 diabetes: barriers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:181–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, Clements MA, Rickels MR, DiMeglio LA, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21:66–72. This paper provides updated data from T1D Exchange, illustrating the impressive increase in adoption of technology over the last several years, but notably it does not correlate with improved glycemic control. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study Research Group. Mortality in type 1 diabetes in the DCCT/EDIC versus the general population. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:1378–83.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dhaliwal R, Weinstock RS. Management of type 1 diabetes in older adults. Diabetes Spectr. 2014;27:9–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keenan HA, Costacou T, Sun JK, Doria A, Cavellerano J, Coney J, et al. Clinical factors associated with resistance to microvascular complications in diabetic patients of extreme disease duration: the 50-year medalist study. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1995–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun JK, Keenan HA, Cavallerano JD, Asztalos BF, Schaefer EJ, Sell DR, et al. Protection from retinopathy and other complications in patients with type 1 diabetes of extreme duration: the Joslin 50-year medalist study. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:968–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weisman A, Rovinski R, Farooqi MA, Lovblom LE, Halpern EM, Boulet G, et al. Commonly measured clinical variables are not associated with burden of complications in long-standing type 1 diabetes: results from the Canadian study of longevity in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:e67–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cryer PE. Hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2010;39:641–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Diabetes Association. Older adults: standards of medical care in diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:S139–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anonymous (2017) Classification of therapeutic continuous glucose monitors as “durable medical equipment” under Medicare part B. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Rulings/Downloads/CMS1682R.pdf. Accessed July 9 2019.
  15. 15.
    Matejko B, Cyganek K, Katra B, Galicka-Latala D, Grzanka M, Malecki MT, et al. Insulin pump therapy is equally effective and safe in elderly and young type 1 diabetes patients. Rev Diabet Stud. 2011;8:254–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Ruedy KJ, Parkin CG, Riddlesworth TD, Graham C, DIAMOND Study Group. Continuous glucose monitoring in older adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin: results from the DIAMOND trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11:1138–46. This study demonstrates the benefits of CGM for people with T1DM and T2DM on multiple daily injections. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Briganti EM, Summers JC, Fitzgerald ZA, Lambers LNJ, Cohen ND. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion can be used effectively and safely in older patients with type 1 diabetes: long-term follow-up. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20:783–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Argento NB, Nakamura K. Personal real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients 65 years and older. Endocr Pract. 2014;20:1297–302.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vigersky RA, Fonda SJ, Chellappa M, Walker MS, Ehrhardt NM. Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:32–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    LeRoith D, Biessels GJ, Braithwaite SS, Casanueva FF, Draznin B, Halter JB, et al. Treatment of diabetes in older adults: an endocrine society* clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:1520–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carls G, Huynh J, Tuttle E, Yee J, Edelman SV. Achievement of glycated hemoglobin goals in the US remains unchanged through 2014. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8:863–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O'Connor MR, Carlin K, Coker T, Zierler B, Pihoker C. Disparities in insulin pump therapy persist in youth with type 1 diabetes despite rising overall pump use rates. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;44:16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheikh K, Bartz SK, Lyons SK, DeSalvo DJ. Diabetes device use and glycemic control among youth with type 1 diabetes: a single-center, cross-sectional study. J Diabetes Res. 2018;2018:5162162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Valenzuela JM, La Greca AM, Hsin O, Taylor C, Delamater AM. Prescribed regimen intensity in diverse youth with type 1 diabetes: role of family and provider perceptions. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;12:696–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Commissariat PV, Boyle CT, Miller KM, Mantravadi MG, DeSalvo DJ, Tamborlane WV, et al. Insulin pump use in young children with type 1 diabetes: sociodemographic factors and parent-reported barriers. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19:363–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wheeler BJ, Braund R, Galland B, Mikuscheva A, Wiltshire E, Jefferies C, et al. District health board of residence, ethnicity and socioeconomic status all impact publicly funded insulin pump uptake in New Zealand patients with type 1 diabetes. N Z Med J. 2019;132:78–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feig DS, Donovan LE, Corcoy R, Murphy KE, Amiel SA, Hunt KF, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390:2347–59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Voormolen DN, DeVries JH, Sanson RME, Heringa MP, de Valk HW, Kok M, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring during diabetic pregnancy (GlucoMOMS): a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20:1894–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rys PM, Ludwig-Slomczynska AH, Cyganek K, Malecki MT. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs multiple daily injections in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;178:545–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mukhopadhyay A, Farrell T, Fraser RB, Ola B. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs intensive conventional insulin therapy in pregnant diabetic women: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:447–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stewart ZA, Wilinska ME, Hartnell S, O'Neil LK, Rayman G, Scott EM, et al. Day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery in a broad population of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1391–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stewart ZA, Wilinska ME, Hartnell S, Temple RC, Rayman G, Stanley KP, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:644–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murphy HR. Intensive glycemic treatment during type 1 diabetes pregnancy: a story of (mostly) sweet success! Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1563–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anonymous Mobile Medical Applications. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health/mobile-medical-applications#a. Accessed July 2 2019.
  35. 35.
    Drincic A, Prahalad P, Greenwood D, Klonoff DC. Evidence-based mobile medical applications in diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2016;45:943–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eiland L, McLarney M, Thangavelu T, Drincic A (2018) App-based insulin calculators: current and future state. Curr Diab Rep 18:123–018.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clements MA, Staggs VS. A mobile app for synchronizing glucometer data: impact on adherence and glycemic control among youths with type 1 diabetes in routine care. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11:461–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sheehy S, Cohen G, Owen KR. Self-management of diabetes in children and young adults using technology and smartphone applications. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2014;10:298–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anonymous Mobile fact sheet. https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/. Accessed July 5 2019.
  40. 40.
    Quinn CC, Khokhar B, Weed K, Barr E, Gruber-Baldini AL. Older adult self-efficacy study of mobile phone diabetes management. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17:455–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Arnhold M, Quade M, Kirch W. Mobile applications for diabetics: a systematic review and expert-based usability evaluation considering the special requirements of diabetes patients age 50 years or older. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Anonymous The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483.pdf. Accessed July 6 2019.
  43. 43.
    Rodriguez JA, Singh K. The Spanish availability and readability of diabetes apps. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12:719–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Williams JP, Schroeder D. Popular glucose tracking apps and use of mHealth by Latinos with diabetes: review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3:e84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sarkar U, Gourley GI, Lyles CR, Tieu L, Clarity C, Newmark L, et al. Usability of commercially available mobile applications for diverse patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:1417–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Carroll JK, Moorhead A, Bond R, LeBlanc WG, Petrella RJ, Fiscella K. Who uses mobile phone health apps and does use matter? A secondary data analytics approach. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ramchandani N. Virtual coaching to enhance diabetes care. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21:S248–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Greenwood DA, Gee PM, Fatkin KJ, Peeples M. A systematic review of reviews evaluating technology-enabled diabetes self-management education and support. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11:1015–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Anonymous TELEMEDICINE. https://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_telemedicine_2010.pdf. Accessed July 12 2019.
  50. 50.
    Weinstock RS, Teresi JA, Goland R, Izquierdo R, Palmas W, Eimicke JP, et al. Glycemic control and health disparities in older ethnically diverse underserved adults with diabetes: five-year results from the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) study. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:274–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dy P, Morin PC, Weinstock RS. Use of telemedicine to improve glycemic management in a skilled nursing facility: a pilot study. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19:643–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Trief PM, Izquierdo R, Eimicke JP, Teresi JA, Goland R, Palmas W, et al. Adherence to diabetes self care for white, African-American and Hispanic American telemedicine participants: 5 year results from the IDEATel project. Ethn Health. 2013;18:83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhai YK, Zhu WJ, Cai YL, Sun DX, Zhao J. Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014;93:e312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lee SWH, Ooi L, Lai YK. Telemedicine for the management of glycemic control and clinical outcomes of type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:330.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Xu T, Pujara S, Sutton S, Rhee M. Telemedicine in the management of type 1 diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15:E13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wood CL, Clements SA, McFann K, Slover R, Thomas JF, Wadwa RP. Use of telemedicine to improve adherence to American Diabetes Association standards in pediatric type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18:7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sood A, Watts SA, Johnson JK, Hirth S, Aron DC. Telemedicine consultation for patients with diabetes mellitus: a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24:385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hanna KM. A framework for the youth with type 1 diabetes during the emerging adulthood transition. Nurs Outlook. 2012;60:401–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Klonoff DC. Behavioral theory: the missing ingredient for digital health tools to change behavior and increase adherence. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13:276–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Eiland
    • 1
  • Thiyagarajan Thangavelu
    • 1
  • Andjela Drincic
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Internal medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology & MetabolismUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations