Has Technology Improved Diabetes Management in Relation to Age, Gender, and Ethnicity?
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsDiabetes Health disparities Age Technology Ethnicity Gender
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.Anonymous Telehealth Basics. https://www.americantelemed.org/resource/why-telemedicine/. Accessed July 10 2019.Google Scholar
- 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.Chait J (2014) Insulin pumps. https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/diabetes-resources/tools-tech/insulin-pumps/. Accessed 24 August 2019.
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 34.Anonymous Mobile Medical Applications. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health/mobile-medical-applications#a. Accessed July 2 2019.
- 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
- 39.Anonymous Mobile fact sheet. https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/. Accessed July 5 2019.
- 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.
- 49.Anonymous TELEMEDICINE. https://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_telemedicine_2010.pdf. Accessed July 12 2019.
- 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