Cited by 21Diabetes Management and ResearchMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and Education

Feasibility and Impact of Remote Glucose Monitoring Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes: Single-Center Pilot Study

Open access
Crossen, Stephanie, Romero, Crystal, Reggiardo, Allison, Michel, Jimi, Glaser, Nicole·2022·JMIR Diabetes

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Caregivers of children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D) maintain close contact with providers for several weeks to facilitate rapid adjustments in insulin dosing regimens. Traditionally, patient glucose values are relayed by telephone for provider feedback, but digital health technology can now enable the remote sharing of glucose data via mobile apps. Objective: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of remote glucose monitoring in a population of children and adolescents with newly diagnosed T1D and to explore whether remote monitoring alters habits for self-review of glucose data or perceived ease of provider contact in this population as compared to a nonrandomized control group. Methods: Data were collected from families who chose to participate in remote monitoring (intervention group) as well as from patients receiving usual care (control group). The intervention group received Bluetooth-capable glucose meters and Apple iPod Touch devices. Patient-generated glucose data were passively relayed from the meter to the iPod Touch and then to both the electronic health record (EHR) and a third-party diabetes data platform, Tidepool. The principal investigator reviewed glucose data daily in the EHR and Tidepool and contacted the participants as needed for insulin dose adjustments during the time between hospital discharge and first clinic appointment. Families in the control group received usual care, which involved keeping written records of glucose values and contacting the diabetes team daily by telephone to relay data and receive treatment recommendations. A total of 40 families (20 for the intervention group and 20 for the control group) participated in the study. All families were surveyed at 1 month and 6 months regarding self-review of glucose data and ease of contacting the diabetes team. Results: Patient-generated glucose data were remotely accessible for 100% of the participants via Tidepool and for 85% via the EHR. Survey data indicated that families in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to review their glucose data using mobile health apps after 1 month (P<.001), but by 6 months, this difference had disappeared. Perceived ease of contacting the clinical team for assistance was lower for the intervention group after 6 months (when receiving usual care) in comparison to during the intervention period (P=.48) and compared with a control group who did not have exposure to remote monitoring (P=.03). Conclusions: Remote glucose monitoring is feasible among pediatric patients with newly diagnosed T1D and may be associated with the earlier adoption of mobile health apps for self-management. The use of broadscale remote monitoring for T1D in the future will depend on improved access to Bluetooth-enabled mobile devices for all patients, improved interoperability of mobile health apps to enable data transfer on Android as well as Apple devices, and new provider workflows to handle large-scale panel management based on patient-generated health data. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04106440; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04106440

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 · 10.2196/33639

Cites

11 of 11 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

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
Crossen, S., Romero, C., Reggiardo, A., Michel, J., & Glaser, N.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Crossen, Stephanie
Venue
JMIR Diabetes
Published
2022-01-17
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e33639
ISSN
2371-4379 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200483925
Cited by
21
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Diabetes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001860, KL2TR001859)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125671)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TR001860)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, remote glucose monitoring, newly diagnosed diabetes, children and adolescents, mobile health apps, rock pools, patient-generated health data, self-monitoring of blood glucose, insulin dose adjustment, caregiver-provider communication, electronic health records, diabetes self-management, feasibility, telemedicine, digital health technologies, post-discharge follow-up

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