ArticleJAMA network open2026
Contemporary Diabetes Technology and the Patient Experience.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Use of insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has increased substantially in type 1 diabetes (T1D) care. Although these technologies improve glycemic outcomes, their broader impact on patients' daily lives and psychosocial well-being remains incompletely understood. Objective: To identify psychosocial and other emerging dimensions of contemporary diabetes technology use among adults with T1D. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used thematic analysis of free-text survey responses collected between August 1, 2024, and February 28, 2025, from adults (aged ≥18 years) with T1D receiving care within a single, large, academic health system in the US. Participants represented a range of ages, diabetes duration, and age at onset; most were users of CGMs and AID systems. Results: Of 5650 individuals who were invited to participate in the study, 945 eligible patients responded to the survey and 535 (mean [range] age, 48 [18 to ≥70] years; 282 [52.8%] female) provided free-text responses regarding the impact of diabetes technology on daily life that were included in the qualitative analysis. The median (range) diabetes duration was 25 (0 to ≥31) years. Overall, 508 (95.0%) were using CGMs and 369 (69.0%) were using insulin pumps. Participants described diverse experiences with modern diabetes technology, reflecting both benefits and burdens. In addition to established psychosocial themes, several novel concerns were identified: environmental impact from device-related waste, travel-related stress due to supply logistics and inconsistent airport security procedures, distress related to premature device failures and challenges navigating manufacturer and insurance replacement processes, and apprehension about digital security. These structural and societal factors were described as meaningful contributors to overall technology experience. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of adults with T1D, contemporary diabetes technology affected more than glycemic control; environmental sustainability, administrative burden, travel logistics, and digital trust represented emerging dimensions of technology-dependent care. Addressing these concerns through patient-centered design, streamlined system processes, and transparent cybersecurity protections may enhance the long-term sustainability and acceptability of advanced diabetes technologies.
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.