Cited by 40Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Psychological outcomes of evening and night closed-loop insulin delivery under free living conditions in people with Type 1 diabetes: A 2-month randomized crossover trial

Open access
Kropff, J., DeJong, J., del Favero, S., Place, J., Messori, M., Coestier, B., Farret, A., Boscari, F. +8 more·2017·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

AIM: To assess the impact on fear of hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction with an artificial pancreas system used for 2 consecutive months, as well as participant acceptance of the artificial pancreas system. METHODS: In a randomized crossover trial patient-related outcomes associated with an evening-and-night artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy were compared. Both intervention periods lasted 8 weeks. The artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire (range 0-90, higher scores better), Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey II (range 0-72, higher scores worse) and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (range 0-36, higher scores better) were completed by 32 participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after study completion in a subset of six participants. Outcomes were compared using a repeated-measures anova model or paired t-test when appropriate. RESULTS: The total artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire score at the end of the artificial pancreas period was 69.1 (sd 14.7; 95% CI 63.5, 74.7), indicating a positive attitude towards the artificial pancreas. No significant differences were found among the scores at baseline, end of sensor-augmented pump therapy period or end of the artificial pancreas period with regard to fear of hypoglycaemia [28.2 (sd 17.5), 23.5 (sd 16.6) and 23.5 (sd 16.7), respectively; P = 0.099] or diabetes treatment satisfaction [29.0 (sd 3.9), 28.2 (sd 5.2) and 28.0 (sd 7.1), respectively; P = 0.43]. Themes frequently mentioned in the interviews were 'positive effects at work', 'improved blood glucose', 'fewer worries about blood glucose', but also 'frequent alarms', 'technological issues' and 'demand for an all-in-one device'. CONCLUSIONS: The psychological outcomes of artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy were similar. Current artificial pancreas technology is promising but user concerns should be taken into account to ensure utility of these systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dme.13268

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • DSSs for patients offer an alternative to closed-loop systems because many users do not feel confident using the artificial pancreas.

    “These DSSs for patients offer an alternative to closed-loop systems. Indeed, many users do not feel confident about using the artificial pancreas [28,29], as they are concerned about possible errors occurring in the insulin pump and so prefer an open-loop therapy (i.e., a therapy in which the patient manually sets the insulin doses), which can be assisted by a DSS.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kropff, J., DeJong, J., del Favero, S., Place, J., Messori, M., Coestier, B., Farret, A., Boscari, F., Galasso, S., Avogaro, A., Bruttomesso, D., Cobelli, C., Renard, E., Magni, L., DeVries, J. H., & the AP@home consortium
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Information Engineering University of Padova Padova Italy
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier (FR)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes, Nutrition Montpellier University Hospital Montpellier France
Corresponding author
Kropff, J.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-10-28
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
262-271
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W2528877804
Cited by
40
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Seventh Framework Programme (247138)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, artificial pancreas, sensor-augmented pump therapy, fear of hypoglycemia, diabetes treatment satisfaction, device acceptance, psychological outcomes, free-living conditions
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Fear, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Patient Satisfaction, Cross-Over Studies, Pancreas, Artificial

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