{"title":"Satisfaction with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.","authors":"Kevin Shrestha, Ashley N Battarbee","doi":"10.1055/a-2442-7090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves pregnancy outcomes in type 1 diabetes. Given rapid uptake of CGM in pregnancies complicated by both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, our objective was to determine if CGM satisfaction and use differed between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Cross-sectional survey study of 100 patients with pregestational diabetes who used Dexcom G6 CGM during pregnancy and received prenatal care at a single tertiary care center. Participants completed the validated 15-question Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey (GMSS) and other questions about CGM use. The primary outcome was high satisfaction with CGM, defined as total GMSS score of 4 or greater. Secondary outcomes included GMSS subscales, frequency of CGM app use, and CGM features used. Outcomes were compared between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and logistic and ordinal regression estimated the association between type 2 diabetes and outcomes. Of 100 surveyed patients, 45 had type 1 and 55 had type 2 diabetes. Patients with type 1 diabetes were more likely to use CGM before pregnancy and use insulin pump. CGM satisfaction did not differ between type 1 and type 2 diabetes (74.5% vs 56.6%; aOR 0.54, 95%CI 0.21-1.36; Fig). High openness, low behavioral burden, low emotional burden, and high worthwhileness also did not differ between groups after adjustment for CGM use before pregnancy. Reported CGM app use was high and did not differ between groups. Patients with type 2 diabetes were less likely to use arrows and/or graphs on CGM app compared to type 1 diabetes. In this cohort, patients with type 2 diabetes appear to be similarly satisfied with CGM compared to those with type 1 diabetes. Future efforts focused on CGM education for new users may help increase use of CGM app features, maximize satisfaction and minimize technology burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2442-7090","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves pregnancy outcomes in type 1 diabetes. Given rapid uptake of CGM in pregnancies complicated by both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, our objective was to determine if CGM satisfaction and use differed between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Cross-sectional survey study of 100 patients with pregestational diabetes who used Dexcom G6 CGM during pregnancy and received prenatal care at a single tertiary care center. Participants completed the validated 15-question Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey (GMSS) and other questions about CGM use. The primary outcome was high satisfaction with CGM, defined as total GMSS score of 4 or greater. Secondary outcomes included GMSS subscales, frequency of CGM app use, and CGM features used. Outcomes were compared between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and logistic and ordinal regression estimated the association between type 2 diabetes and outcomes. Of 100 surveyed patients, 45 had type 1 and 55 had type 2 diabetes. Patients with type 1 diabetes were more likely to use CGM before pregnancy and use insulin pump. CGM satisfaction did not differ between type 1 and type 2 diabetes (74.5% vs 56.6%; aOR 0.54, 95%CI 0.21-1.36; Fig). High openness, low behavioral burden, low emotional burden, and high worthwhileness also did not differ between groups after adjustment for CGM use before pregnancy. Reported CGM app use was high and did not differ between groups. Patients with type 2 diabetes were less likely to use arrows and/or graphs on CGM app compared to type 1 diabetes. In this cohort, patients with type 2 diabetes appear to be similarly satisfied with CGM compared to those with type 1 diabetes. Future efforts focused on CGM education for new users may help increase use of CGM app features, maximize satisfaction and minimize technology burden.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields.
The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field.
All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication.
The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.