ArticleDiabetes technology & therapeutics2014
Artificial pancreas (AP) clinical trial participants' acceptance of future AP technology.
Article in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Psychosocial assessment of artificial pancreas (AP): commentary and review of existing measures and their applicability in AP research.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2015Pooled it
- Trust in hybrid closed loop among people with diabetes: Perspectives of experienced system users.Journal of health psychology · 2020Trial
- 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.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2017Trial
- Psychosocial Impact of the Bionic Pancreas During Summer Camp.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2016Trial
- Future acceptance of automated insulin delivery systems in youths with type 1 diabetes: validation of the Italian artificial pancreas-acceptance measure.Acta diabetologica · 2025Article
- Article
- Measures of Patient-Reported Expectations, Acceptance, and Satisfaction Using Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: A Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Perceptions and expectations of adults with type 1 diabetes for the use of artificial pancreas systems with and without glucagon addition: Results of an online survey.Nutrition, metabolism, and cardiovascular diseases : NMCD · 2021Article
- Acceptance of the Artificial Pancreas: Comparing the Effect of Technology Readiness, Product Characteristics, and Social Influence Between Invited and Self-Selected Respondents.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
- Physical activity and type 1 diabetes: time for a rewire?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2015Review
- Response to comment on Doyle et al. Closed-loop artificial pancreas systems: engineering the algorithms. Diabetes Care 2014;37:1191-1197.Diabetes care · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial pancreas (AP) systems are currently an active field of diabetes research. This pilot study examined the attitudes of AP clinical trial participants toward future acceptance of the technology, having gained firsthand experience. SUBJECTS AND
methodsAfter possible influencers of AP technology adoption were considered, a 34-question questionnaire was developed. The survey assessed current treatment satisfaction, dimensions of clinical trial participant motivation, and variables of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Forty-seven subjects were contacted to complete the survey. The reliability of the survey scales was tested using Cronbach's α. The relationship of the factors to the likelihood of AP technology adoption was explored using regression analysis.
resultsThirty-six subjects (76.6%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 86.1% were either highly likely or likely to adopt the technology once available. Reliability analysis of the survey dimensions revealed good internal consistency, with scores of >0.7 for current treatment satisfaction, convenience (motivation), personal health benefit (motivation), perceived ease of use (TAM), and perceived usefulness (TAM). Linear modeling showed that future acceptance of the AP was significantly associated with TAM and the motivation variables of convenience plus the individual item benefit to others (R(2)=0.26, P=0.05). When insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor use were added, the model significance improved (R(2)=0.37, P=0.02).
conclusionsThis pilot study demonstrated that individuals with direct AP technology experience expressed high likelihood of future acceptance. Results support the factors of personal benefit, convenience, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use as reliable scales that suggest system adoption in this highly motivated patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.