Objective: To describe perceived burdens and benefits of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use in CGM non-users vs. users with type 1 diabetes across the lifespan.
Research Design and Methods: The Burdens of CGM (BurCGM) and Benefit of CGM (BenCGM) questionnaires were completed at clinic visits from Feb 2019 to Nov 2019. Mean scores were calculated (scale 1-5; higher score reflects greater perceived burdens and benefits). Data collected from medical records included demographic information, CGM and insulin pump use, and HbA1c within 3 months of the visit.
Results: Participant characteristics (n=1143) and the 3 most common perceived CGM burdens (in non-CGM users) and benefits (in non-CGM users and CGM users) are shown in the Table. Individuals using real time (RT) and non-RT CGM described more benefits (mean scores 34.9 and 34.0) when compared to those who never used CGM (mean score 30.2) (p<.001). There were no differences in burdens or benefits by sex or race. Mean HbA1C was lower in CGM users (8.2%) vs. non-CGM users (mean A1c 9.3%; p<.001); 47.4% of non-CGM users vs. 29.3% of RT-CGM users and 30.6% of non-RT-CGM users had A1c>9.0%.
Conclusions: Cost is a barrier to CGM use, particularly in adults. In non-CGM users (vs. users), CGM was perceived as having less benefit and to be associated with pain and concern that readings cannot be trusted. Advocacy (for lower cost) and education are needed to address these barriers.
V. Divan: None. M. Greenfield: None. C.P. Morley: None. R.S. Weinstock: Board Member; Self; JDRF. Consultant; Self; Insulogic LLC. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Jaeb Center for Health Research, Kowa Research Institute, Inc., Medtronic, Tolerion, Inc.
Type 1 Diabetes Exchange QI Learning Collaborative