When research leaves more questions

Today, there was an article in online publication, The Limbic, which reported on a recent study conducted out of Westmead Hospital Young Adult Diabetes Clinic

The top line news from this research was that there is a high discontinuation rate of CGM in young people (aged 15 to 21 years). 

Let me start by saying I know that CGM is not for everyone. I don’t believe everyone should use it, have to use or even necessarily be encouraged to use it. As with everything, your diabetes technology wishes and dreams may vary (#YDTWADMV really isn’t a catchy hashtag, is it?), and there is a lot to consider, including accessibility and affordability. In Australia, affordability is not such an issue for the age group that was studied in this research. Our NDSS CGM initiative means that access to CGM and Flash is fully taxpayer funded (with no out-of-pocket expenses) for pretty much all kids, adolescents and young people up to the age of 21, provided a healthcare professional fills in the relevant form. 

The top-level findings from this research are that within the first week of starting to use CGM, almost 60% of study participants stopped. The decision to start CGM was made after a one-hour education program that was offered to 151 young people with diabetes, and 44 of them decided to start CGM. Of those 44, 18 young people continued using it. They happened to be the 18 young people who were more connected with their HCP team (i.e., had more frequent clinic appointments) and had a lower A1c, which the researchers suggested meant that they were struggling less with their diabetes management. The 26 young people who chose not to continue cited reasons for stopping such as discomfort, and inconvenience.

I had a lot of questions after I read about this research. (These questions arose after reading the Limbic’s short article and the research abstract. I will follow up and read the whole article when I can get access.)

If the young people who chose to not continue were already struggling with their diabetes management, is adding a noisy, somewhat obvious (as in – it’s stuck to the body 24/7), data-heavy device necessarily a good idea? Was this discussed with them?

Was any psychological support offered to those young people having a tough time with their diabetes? 

Was it explained to the young people how to customise alarms to work for them? If diabetes management was already struggling and resulting in out-of-range numbers, high glucose alarms could have been turned off to begin with. Was this explained?

What education and support had been offered in the immediate period after they commenced CGM therapy? Was there follow up? Was there assistance with doing their first sensor change (which can be daunting for some)? 

In that one-hour education they were offered before deciding to start on a CGM, did they hear from others with diabetes – others their own age (i.e., their peers) – to have conversations about the pros and cons of this therapy, and learn tips and tricks for overcoming some typical concerns and frustrations?

What was in that one-hour education program? Apparently, 151 young people did the program. And only 44 people chose to start CGM. Now, as I’ve already said, I don’t think CGM is for everyone, but 29% seems like a pretty low uptake to me, especially considering there is no cost to use CGM. Did anyone ask if the education program was fit for purpose, or addressed all the issues that this cohort may have? Why did so few young people want to start CGM after doing the program?

Were they using the share function? Did they have the opportunity to turn that off if they felt insecure about others being able to see their glucose data every minute of every day?

What frustrates me so much about this sort of research and the way it is reported is that there is a narrative that the devices are problematic, and that the people who have stopped using them have somehow failed. 

CGM may not be for everyone, but it’s not problematic or terrible technology. I remember how long it took me to learn how to live with CGM and understand the value of it. It took me time and a lot of trial and error. I didn’t want to wear CGM, not because it was lousy tech, or because I was ‘failing’, but because I hadn’t been shown how to get it to work with and for me. I had to work that out myself – with the guidance of others with diabetes who explained that I could change the parameters for the alarms, or turn them off completely.

And these young people are YOUNG PEOPLE – with so much more going on, already struggling with their diabetes management, and not connected with their diabetes healthcare team as much as the young people who continued using CGM. Do we have any information about why they don’t want to connect with healthcare professionals? Could that be part of the reason that they didn’t want to continue using CGM?

I don’t think we should attribute blame in diabetes, but it happens all the time. And when it does, blame is usually targeted at the person with diabetes, but rarely the healthcare professional working in diabetes. If a person with diabetes is not provided adequate, relevant education and support for using a new piece of tech, there should not be any surprise if they make the decision to not keep going with it. 

The positives here is that there is data to show that young people who are already struggling with their diabetes management may need other things before slapping a CGM on them. Cool tech can only do so much; it’s the warm hands of understanding HCPs that might be needed first here. Someone to sit with them and understand what those struggles and challenges are, and find a way to work through them. And if CGM is decided as a way forward, work out a gently, gently approach rather than going from zero to every single bell and whistle switched on. 

I am a huge supporter and believer in research and I am involved in a number of research projects as an associate investigator or advisor. I’m an even bigger supporter in involving people with diabetes as part of research teams to remind other researchers of the real-life implications that could be considered as part of the study, offering a far richer research results. Growing an evidence base about diabetes technologies is how we get to put forward a strong case for funding and reimbursement, increased education programs and more research. But sometimes there seems to be a lot of gaps that need filling before we get a decent idea of what is going on because the findings only tell one very small chapter in the diabetes story.