ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025
Continuous glucose monitoring remote monitoring does not meet the needs of all adult users: A qualitative study of adults with type 1 diabetes who do not use remote monitoring.
Article in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data Privacy, Ownership, and Secondary Use of Clinical Data Generated by Continuous Glucose Monitors and Mobile Health Applications: A Review.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2026Review
- Continuous glucose monitoring remote monitoring does not meet the needs of all adult users: A qualitative study of adults with type 1 diabetes who do not use remote monitoring.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly popular in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). These devices have a remote monitoring function that allows for a third-party individual to monitor the user's glucose levels. While remote monitoring in CGM devices is widely used in T1D management, especially in paediatric populations, there are some individuals with T1D that do not utilise this function. This study aimed to explore the reasons behind some adults not using the remote following function on their real-time CGM (rtCGM) devices.
methodsAdults with T1D who had been using rtCGM without the remote monitoring function were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews explored the participants' experiences using CGM and their reasons on why remote monitoring was not for them. Interviews were analysed thematically.
resultsInterviews were conducted with fifteen people with T1D. Mean age was 27.3 years ± 9.34 SD. Thematic analysis identified three remote monitoring themes: (1) anxiety/concern regarding sharing data; (2) independence with diabetes management; and (3) desire for more customised sharing. There was a universal appeal of the efficacy, ease and practicality of glucose management with CGM devices among participants, particularly when compared to their past experiences with finger-prick testing.
conclusionsRemote monitoring can be a valuable complement to CGM, but it may not appeal to all individuals with T1D, particularly some adults. These findings offer insights for healthcare teams and provide feedback to help CGM manufacturers develop a more customised remote monitoring experience. Some users clearly wish to prioritise privacy and autonomy while still gaining a safety net in critical situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.