CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20

Perceptions and experiences of adult patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: Results of an online survey

Taleb, Nadine, Messier, Virginie, Ott-Braschi, Sylvie, Ardilouze, Jean-Luc, Rabasa-Lhoret, Rémi·2018·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
DOI 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.07.035
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims To assess perceptions of patients using subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) about metabolic control, pump malfunctions, technical and insertion site adverse events (AEs) related to infusion sets/catheters as well as patients' practices. Methods Online survey (from June 2016 to January 2017) using an actualized 39-item questionnaire directed to adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using CSII therapy and living in the province of Quebec, Canada. Results Participants with T1D (n = 115, 72% females, 39.7 ± 14.0 years, diabetes duration: 20.9 ± 12.2 years, CSII use: 6.2 ± 4.1 years) adequately completed the survey. Infusion sets were changed every 3.3 ± 0.9 day. Improved glucose control and decreased number/severity of hypoglycemic episodes were reported by 80% and 68%/50% of subjects, respectively. Over the past year of CSII use, participants perceived no increase in anxiety/worry (84%), no negative impact on life (89%) or on time off from work/school (82%). Conversely, many experienced at least one clinical AEs at insertion site [pain (84%), adhesion (76%), irritation (69%), lipodystrophy (45%)] and technical issues [blockage (52%), cannula kinking (50%), pump stop (55%), air bubbles (46%)]. No significant association was observed between catheter wear-time and AEs. All participants had one or more problems related to CSII use, although only 37% reported addressing these issues with health professionals. Conclusion Our study suggests that patients positively perceived CSII us…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.07.035

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taleb, N., Messier, V., Ott-Braschi, S., Ardilouze, J.-L., & Rabasa-Lhoret, R.
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
144
Pages
42-50
ISSN
0168-8227
DOI
10.1016/j.diabres.2018.07.035
Cited by
20
References
10
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review