A Minority of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Routinely Downloads and Retrospectively Reviews Device Data.
A Minority of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Routinely Downloads and Retrospectively Reviews Device Data.
复制标题
少数1型糖尿病患者常规下载并回顾性地审查设备数据。
DOI：
10.1089/dia.2014.0413
复制
发表时间：
2015-08
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Adi S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wong JC;Neinstein AB;Spindler M;Adi S
背景：在1型糖尿病（T1D）中，应定期检查血糖和胰岛素剂量，但尚不清楚患者自己检查这些数据的频率。我们描述了T1D患者在家中定期下载和查看数据的比例。材料与方法：对同一学术机构155名成人和185名T1D儿童看护人进行横断面调查。“常规下载者”（在过去一年中下载了4次或以上）也被认为是“常规审查者”，如果他们大部分时间都在从设备上下载数据。使用逻辑回归来确定与常规审查员相关的因素。结果：只有31%的成年人和56%的护理人员报告曾经从一个或多个设备下载数据，而分别有20%和40%的人被认为是常规下载者。只有12%的成年人和27%的护理人员是常规审查员。常规审查员的平均血红蛋白A1c低于非常规审查员（成人为7.2±1.0%比8.1±1.6% [P=0.03]，儿童为7.8±1.4%比8.6±1.7% [P=0.001]）。在成人的校正分析中，年龄每增加10年，作为一种或多种器械的常规审查员的比值比为1.5（95%可信区间，1.1,2.1 [P=0.02]）。自糖尿病诊断后每10年，作为常规审查员的优势比为1.7（95%可信区间，1.2,2.4 [P=0.01]）。对于护理人员来说，没有统计学上显著的因素与例行审查相关。结论：少数T1D患者定期从他们的设备上下载和回顾数据。需要进一步的研究来了解障碍，为自我评估提供更好的教育和工具，并确定患者自我评估是否与改善血糖控制有关。
Background: In type 1 diabetes (T1D), periodic review of blood glucose and insulin dosing should be performed, but it is not known how often patients review these data on their own. We describe the proportion of patients with T1D who routinely downloaded and reviewed their data at home. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 155 adults and 185 caregivers of children with T1D at a single academic institution was performed. “Routine Downloaders” (downloaded four or more times in the past year) were also considered “Routine Reviewers” if they reviewed their data most of the time they downloaded from devices. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with being a Routine Reviewer. Results: Only 31% of adults and 56% of caregivers reported ever downloading data from one or more devices, whereas 20% and 40%, respectively, were considered Routine Downloaders. Only 12% of adults and 27% of caregivers were Routine Reviewers. Mean hemoglobin A1c was lower in Routine Reviewers compared with non-Routine Reviewers (7.2±1.0% vs. 8.1±1.6% [P=0.03] in adults and 7.8±1.4% vs. 8.6±1.7% [P=0.001] in children). In adjusted analysis of adults, the odds ratio of being a Routine Reviewer of one or more devices for every 10-year increase in age was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.1, 2.1 [P=0.02]). For every 10 years since diabetes diagnosis, the odds ratio of being a Routine Reviewer was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.2, 2.4 [P=0.01]). For caregivers, there were no statistically significant factors associated with being a Routine Reviewer. Conclusions: A minority of T1D patients routinely downloads and reviews data from their devices on their own. Further research is needed to understand obstacles, provide better education and tools for self-review, and determine if patient self-review is associated with improved glycemic control.