2025/10/30 by Miao Gao, Swathi Saravanan, Theresa Munyombwe +4 · 1 voice
Health Professions · Medicine · #Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring #Continuous glucose monitoring #Diabetes Management and Education #Diabetes Management and Research #Diabetes mellitus #Insulin delivery #MEDLINE #Mobile Health and mHealth Applications #Type 1 diabetes #Type 2 diabetes
paper · pdf · doi:10.2337/dc25-1178
openalex created_date 2025/10/30 · openalex publication_date 2025/10/30 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/26
BACKGROUND: Use of technology is central to the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), while patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) can support in the management of these individuals. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of diabetes technologies on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in type 1 diabetes (T1D). DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles from 2013 to August 2025. STUDY SELECTION: We included longitudinal diabetes technology studies assessing validated PROMs in nonpregnant adults with T1D. DATA EXTRACTION: Study characteristics and PROM data were extracted, and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for PROs were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 4,885 articles, comprising 81 independent studies (n = 19,148 participants) and 70 different PROMs. The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS) was most commonly used (k = 39 studies), followed by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (status [DTSQs] or change version [DTSQc]; k = 38), Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS; k = 25), and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale (k = 24). Technology use was associated with lower HFS total score compared with control (SMD -0.177; 95% CI -0.319, -0.036; P = 0.014; I2 = 0.0%), with the largest effect observed in automated insulin device users. A moderate positive effect of diabetes technologies was observed on DTSQs and DTSQc scores (SMD 0.429; 95% CI 0.206, 0.653; P < 0.001; I2 = 72.3%), with a small to moderate reduction in DDS and PAID scores (SMD -0.265; 95% CI -0.363, -0.166; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%). LIMITATIONS: Differences in type of technology, varied use and incomplete reporting of PROMs, and different duration of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes technologies offer psychological benefits in adults with T1D. The large number of reported PROMs suggests a need to standardize their use.