4.5 Article

Perceptions and experiences of using automated bolus advisors amongst people with type 1 diabetes: A longitudinal qualitative investigation

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 443-450

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2014.09.011

关键词

Automated bolus advisor; Type 1 diabetes; Patient experience; Qualitative methods; Technology

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme [08/107/01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: We explored people's reasons for, and experiences of, using bolus advisors to determine insulin doses; and, their likes/dislikes of this technology. Subjects and methods: 42 people with type 1 diabetes who had received instruction in use of bolus advisors during a structured education course were interviewed post-course and 6 months later. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Participants who considered themselves to have poor mathematical skills highlighted a gratitude for, and heavy reliance on, advisors. Others liked and chose to use advisors because they saved time and effort calculating doses and/or had a data storage facility. Follow-up interviews highlighted that, by virtue of no longer calculating their doses, participants could become deskilled and increasingly dependent on advisors. Some forgot what their mealtime ratios were; others reported a misperception that, because they were pre-programmed during courses, these parameters never needed changing. Use of data storage facilities could hinder effective review of blood glucose data and some participants reported an adverse impact on glycaemic control. Discussion: While participants liked and perceived benefits to using advisors, there may be unintended consequences to giving people access to this technology. To promote effective use, on-going input and education from trained health professionals may be necessary. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据