Effect of Automated Bio-Behavioral Feedback on the Control of Type 1 Diabetes

Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Diabetes care (Impact Factor: 8.42). 02/2011; 34(2):302-7. DOI: 10.2337/dc10-1366
Source: PubMed


To test the effect of an automated system providing real-time estimates of HbA(1c), glucose variability, and risk for hypoglycemia.
For 1 year, 120 adults with type 1 diabetes (69 female/51 male, age = 39.1 [14.3] years, duration of diabetes 20.3 [12.9] years, HbA(1c) = 8.0 [1.5]), performed self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and received feedback at three increasingly complex levels, each continuing for 3 months: level 1--routine SMBG; level 2--adding estimated HbA(1c), hypoglycemia risk, and glucose variability; and level 3--adding estimates of symptoms potentially related to hypoglycemia. The subjects were randomized to feedback sequences of either levels 1-2-3 or levels 2-3-1. HbA(1c), symptomatic hypoglycemia, and blood glucose awareness were evaluated at baseline and at the end of each level.
For all subjects, HbA(1c) was reduced from 8.0 to 7.6 from baseline to the end of study (P = 0.001). This effect was confined to subjects with baseline HbA(1c) >8.0 (from 9.3 to 8.5, P < 0.001). Incidence of symptomatic moderate/severe hypoglycemia was reduced from 5.72 to 3.74 episodes/person/month (P = 0.019), more prominently for subjects with a history of severe hypoglycemia (from 7.20 to 4.00 episodes, P = 0.008) and for those who were hypoglycemia unaware (from 6.44 to 3.71 episodes, P = 0.045). The subjects' ratings of the feedback were positive, with up to 89% approval of the provided features.
Feedback of SMBG data and summary SMBG-based measures resulted in improvement in average glycemic control and reduction in moderate/severe hypoglycemia. These effects were most prominent in subjects who were at highest risk at the baseline.

Download full-text


Available from: Linda A Gonder-Frederick,
19 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New guidelines from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Diabetes Association provide specific exercise advice for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, while new research emphasizes the importance of getting people off the couch and moving more often throughout the day.
    Nature Reviews Endocrinology 04/2011; 7(4):189-90. DOI:10.1038/nrendo.2011.35 · 13.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: This study described and compared the perception of hypoglycaemia in both patients with type 1 diabetes and diabetologists. Methods: This was an observational cross-sectional study undertaken in France in 2011. Data for what hypoglycaemia represents and practices related to it were collected using a questionnaire completed by patients with type 1 diabetes (all>12 years of age) and their diabetologists. Agreement between patients and physicians was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Gwet's coefficient (GC). Results: A total of 485 patients were enrolled by 118 diabetologists. Half the patients thought that hypoglycaemia was always symptomatic. According to both patients and diabetologists, hypoglycaemia impaired quality of life, caused anxiety and was disturbing, especially at night. Clinical symptoms of hypoglycaemia (sweating, shakiness, anxiety) were linked to patient's age and diabetes duration. Regarding hypoglycaemia frequency, agreement was good for severe hypoglycaemia (GC: 0.61 and 0.72 for diurnal and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, respectively) and poor for mild hypoglycaemia (ICC: 0.44 and 0.40, respectively). Diabetologists correctly evaluated the impact of hypoglycaemia on quality of life, but overestimated the hypoglycaemia-induced burden and anxiety. Counteractive behaviours were frequent: 23% of patients decreased their insulin dose, 20% increased their sugar intake and 12% ate extra snacks. Diabetologists were generally aware of these measures, but not of how often patients used them. Conclusion: Diabetologists and patients do not share enough information about hypoglycaemia. Fear of hypoglycaemia and counteractive behaviours should be looked for by diabetologists. Systematic advice and specially adapted education should also be provided to increase patients' awareness of hypoglycaemia.
    Diabetes & Metabolism 12/2012; 39(1). DOI:10.1016/j.diabet.2012.10.006 · 3.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a glucose pattern recognition tool incorporated in a blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) and its association with clinical measures, and to assess user perception and understanding of the pattern messages they receive. Participants had type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and were self-adjusting insulin doses for ≥1 year. During a 4-week home testing period, participants performed ≥6 daily self-tests, adjusted their insulin regimen based on BGMS results, and recorded pattern messages in the logbook. Participants reflected on usability of the pattern tool in a questionnaire. Study participants (n = 101) received a mean ± standard deviation of 4.5 ± 1.9 pattern messages per week (3.6 ± 1.8 high glucose patterns and 0.9 ± 1.3 low glucose patterns). Most received ≥1 high (96.5%) and/or ≥1 low (46.0%) pattern message per week. The average number of high- and low-pattern messages per week was associated with higher and lower, respectively, baseline hemoglobin A1c (p < .01) and fasting plasma glucose (p < .05). Participants found high- and low-pattern messages clear and easy to understand (84.2% and 83.2%, respectively) and considered the frequency of low (82.0%) and high (63.4%) pattern messages about right. Overall, 71.3% of participants indicated they preferred to use a meter with pattern messages. The on-device Pattern tool identified meaningful blood glucose patterns, highlighting potential opportunities for improving glycemic control in patients who self-adjust their insulin.
    Journal of diabetes science and technology 08/2013; 7(4):970-8. DOI:10.1089/dia.2015.1501
Show more