ArticlePloS one2026
Comparison of AID users and non-users regarding glycemic control and diabetes distress: A mixed-methods study.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study compared glycemic control and diabetes distress in individuals with type 1 diabetes using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems versus those not using such systems, addressing a gap in research on psychosocial outcomes of diabetes technologies.
methodsA sequential mixed-methods design was employed to examine differences between AID users and non-users. A total of 169 individuals with type 1 diabetes completed an online survey assessing HbA1c, total diabetes distress, and its subscales. Quantitative results were complemented by 12 follow-up interviews to provide contextual depth.
resultsThe AID group (n = 80) showed significantly lower levels in HbA1c, total diabetes distress, and all subdimensions compared to the non-AID group (n = 89), which showed high CGM use (~94%). The largest effects emerged for Management Distress and Powerlessness. Interview data suggested that AID systems reduce the cognitive and emotional burden of diabetes self-management, which may explain these differences. Contrary to expectations, group differences in Hypoglycemia Distress and Negative Social Perception were smaller. This may be explained by the widespread use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in the non-AID group, as participants from both groups reported CGM use to be helpful in reducing hypoglycemic events.
conclusionsAID systems are associated with both, improved glycemic outcomes and enhanced psychosocial well-being. These findings underscore the multifaceted benefits of AID systems and highlight the importance of incorporating psychosocial dimensions into the evaluation of diabetes technologies. The mixed-methods approach proved valuable in capturing both quantitative and experiential aspects, providing a more nuanced understanding of patient experiences.
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.