Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26085567›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2015

PsychDT Working Group: Report Psychosocial Aspects of Artificial Pancreas Systems.

Katharine D Barnard, Manu V Venkat, Kelly Close, Lutz Heinemann, Jill Weissberg-Benchell, Korey K Hood, Thomas Kubiak, Aaron J Kowalski, Lori Laffel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Katharine D BarnardHuman Development and Health Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK katharine.barnard1@virginmedia.com.
Manu V VenkatClose Concerns, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kelly CloseThe diaTribe Foundation, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Lutz HeinemannScience & Co, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Jill Weissberg-BenchellNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Korey K HoodPediatrics, Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Thomas KubiakHealth Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Aaron J KowalskiJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Ltd, New York, NY, USA.
Lori LaffelJoslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes technology is a cornerstone of diabetes management in the 21st century, with advances in available devices over recent years playing a central role in the way that health care has progressed. Psychosocial interventions have been shown to have a positive impact on glycemic control, reduce psychological distress and reduce costs of health care. Addressing and improving psychosocial outcomes that complement biomedical improvements and looking to the future are crucial to enhance patient acceptance of artificial pancreas (AP) systems.

methodsTo achieve closer collaboration and comparability across different AP research trials, a working group was established.

resultsExisting measures fail to adequately capture the extent to which human and psychological factors play a role in the uptake and efficient use of AP systems. Understanding these factors will ultimately lead to the most benefit for users. Reliable measures of the psychosocial impact of AP systems for users is crucial to ensure that (1) regulatory authorities are able to robustly consider these aspects as part of their approval process, (2) government and private payers are able to factor these aspects into their decisions regarding reimbursement, and (3) persons with diabetes maximize benefits in terms of both glycemic control and quality of life to minimize the burden of diabetes in everyday life.

conclusionsThis working group will serve as a platform to foster exchange, identify research needs, and guide and initiate collaborative research laying the groundwork for optimal utilization of diabetes technology in clinical diabetes care. A close collaboration among all key stakeholders is crucial to ensure that devices are designed, trialed, approved, and provided with minimal user burden and maximum beneficial effect.

Indexed as

AutomationBlood GlucoseClinical Trials as TopicCongresses as TopicDecision MakingDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1HumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationPancreas, ArtificialParisPsychologyQuality of LifeBlood Glucoseartificial pancreasdiabetes technologieshuman factorspsychosocialquality of life

Identifiers

PMID26085567
PMCPMC4525639

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.