Barriers of Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Patients with Type 1 DM in Tabuk Region, KSA 2025
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.3973Keywords:
Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM), Diabetes Management, CGM Awareness, CGM Adoption, Diabetes Technology, CGM Features.Abstract
Background: CGM devices, commonly known as self-monitoring devices, are essential in diabetes management since they offer real-time glucose level information. This research proposes determining the level of awareness, usage, level of satisfaction with the CGM devices and perceived barriers among the adult Type 1 diabetes patients. Awareness of these factors should facilitate further use of CGM devices and enhance the outcomes of diabetes treatment.
Method: Closed-ended questions were used in order to administer a structured questionnaire among participants with type 1 diabetes. Demographics, Diabetes self-management activities, awareness about CGM devices, ever use, level of satisfaction and perceived barriers were captured in the self-administered questionnaire. Participants also assigned scores for their perception of CGM capabilities and gave some details about the preferable functionality of the system and the maximum allowable project cost. To this end, data was analyzed descriptively with a view of establishing trends and significant patterns in the use and perceived importance of CGMs.
Result: The respondents were randomly selected across the age, education and employment status spectrum. A considerable number of participants, 90.7 % admitted to having seen or known CGM devices, but only 70.1 % had ever used them.
Finding: For the 74.6 % of the users are also found to be either satisfied or very satisfied with the device. The survey revealed that cost was the foremost reason why more than half of the non-users were unable to incorporate WP. Some of the participants said they were willing to pay less than 100 SAR per month for CGM devices. Perceived usefulness defined as accuracy, ease of use of a monitor and continuous data monitoring for decisions were seen as crucial. In addition, as many as 80% of respondents claimed that CGM use might enhance diabetes control.
Conclusion: According to this study’s findings out of those who are aware that CGM devices exist, their utilization is limited mainly by cost factors. In general, there were quite favorable assessments of the devices, pointing out that such aspects as accuracy and convenience are crucial. The financial barriers should be eliminated by the provision of subsidies for the devices or affordable models of the technology would greatly increase the use and benefit of the CGM technologies for Diabetes Management. Future research, therefore, must cover how to make CGM devices more accessible and how to make people understand that they should use the devices in the first place. It is suggested that more studies should be conducted in order to empirically test more specific strategies for addressing difficulties and increasing the utilization of CGM technology.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Mayer-Davis EJ, Lawrence JM, Dabelea D, Divers J, Isom S, Dolan L, Imperatore G, Linder B, Marcovina S, Pettitt DJ, Pihoker C. Incidence trends of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among youths, 2002–2012. New England Journal of Medicine. 2017 Apr 13;376(15):1419-29.
Ngongo OM, Ngoy DM, Kasamba IE, Bafwafwa ND, Wembonyama OS, Luboya NO. Type I diabetes mellitus in children under 5 years of age: a case report at the university clinics of Lubumbashi and a review of the literature. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2017;26.
Van Belle TL, Coppieters KT, Von Herrath MG. Type 1 diabetes: etiology, immunology, and therapeutic strategies. Physiological reviews. 2011 Jan;91(1):79-118.
Katsarou A, Gudbjörnsdottir S, Rawshani A, Dabelea D, Bonifacio E, Anderson BJ, Jacobsen LM, Schatz DA, Lernmark Å. Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Nature reviews Disease primers. 2017 Mar 30;3(1):1-7.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The Revision. 2017.
Habeb AM, Al‐Magamsi MS, Halabi S, Eid IM, Shalaby S, Bakoush O. High incidence of childhood type 1 diabetes in al‐madinah, north west saudi arabia (2004–2009). Pediatric diabetes. 2011 Dec;12(8):676-81.
Alotaibi M, Alibrahim L, Alharbi N. Challenges associated with treating children with diabetes in Saudi Arabia. diabetes research and clinical practice. 2016 Oct 1;120:235-40.
Garg S, Jovanovic L. Relationship of fasting and hourly blood glucose levels to HbA1c values: safety, accuracy, and improvements in glucose profiles obtained using a 7-day continuous glucose sensor. Diabetes Care. 2006 Dec 1;29(12):2644-9.
Garg S, Zisser H, Schwartz S, Bailey T, Kaplan R, Ellis S, Jovanovic L. Improvement in glycemic excursions with a transcutaneous, real-time continuous glucose sensor: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes care. 2006 Jan 1;29(1):44-50.
Kovatchev B, Clarke W. Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Reduces Risks for Hypo-and Hyperglycemia and Glucose Variability in Diabetes. Diabetes. 2007 Jun 2;56.
Christiansen MP, Klaff LJ, Brazg R, Chang AR, Levy CJ, Lam D, Denham DS, Atiee G, Bode BW, Walters SJ, Kelley L. A prospective multicenter evaluation of the accuracy of a novel implanted continuous glucose sensor: PRECISE II. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2018 Mar 1;20(3):197-206.
Bloomgarden DK, Freeman J, DeRobertis E. Early patient and clinician experiences with continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Spectrum. 2008 Apr 1;21(2):128-33.
Stone JY, Bailey TS. Benefits and limitations of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Expert review of endocrinology & metabolism. 2020 Jan 2;15(1):41-9.
Hilliard ME, Levy W, Anderson BJ, Whitehouse AL, Commissariat PV, Harrington KR, Laffel LM, Miller KM, Van Name M, Tamborlane WV, DeSalvo DJ. Benefits and barriers of continuous glucose monitoring in young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2019 Sep 1;21(9):493-8.
Charleer S, Mathieu C, Nobels F, De Block C, Radermecker RP, Hermans MP, Taes Y, Vercammen C, T'Sjoen G, Crenier L, Fieuws S. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control, acute admissions, and quality of life: a real-world study. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2018 Mar;103(3):1224-32.
Messer LH, Johnson R, Driscoll KA, Jones J. Best friend or spy: a qualitative meta‐synthesis on the impact of continuous glucose monitoring on life with type 1 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine. 2018 Apr;35(4):409-18.
Freckmann G, Link M, Kamecke U, Haug C, Baumgartner B, Weitgasser R. Performance and usability of three systems for continuous glucose monitoring in direct comparison. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2019 Sep;13(5):890-8.
Welsh JB, Gao P, Derdzinski M, Puhr S, Johnson TK, Walker TC, Graham C. Accuracy, utilization, and effectiveness comparisons of different continuous glucose monitoring systems. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2019 Mar 1;21(3):128-32.
Freckmann G, Link M, Pleus S, Westhoff A, Kamecke U, Haug C. Measurement performance of two continuous tissue glucose monitoring systems intended for replacement of blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2018 Aug 1;20(8):541-9.
Friedman JG, Cardona Matos Z, Szmuilowicz ED, Aleppo G. Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors to Manage Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Progress, Challenges, and Recommendations. Pharmgenomics Pers Med. 2023 Mar 31;16:263-276.
Halford J, Harris C. Determining clinical and psychological benefits and barriers with continuous glucose monitoring therapy. Diabetes technology & therapeutics. 2010 Mar 1;12(3):201-5.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
