Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25269659›Full record

Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2015

Do perceptions of insulin pump usability impact attitudes toward insulin pump therapy? A pilot study of individuals with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

James J Chamberlain, Emily Gilgen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Concept and Implementation of a Novel Patch Pump for Insulin Delivery.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparative Handling Analysis of Different Insulin Pump Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018
    Article
  11. Influences on Technology Use and Efficacy in Type 1 Diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2016
    Review
  12. Prevention of exercise-associated dysglycemia: a case study-based approach.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James J ChamberlainSt. Mark's Hospital & St. Mark's Diabetes Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA jimchammd@yahoo.com.
Emily GilgenSt. Mark's Hospital & St. Mark's Diabetes Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
St. Mark's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We assessed the impact of perceived insulin pump usability on attitudes toward insulin pump therapy in diabetic individuals currently treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI). This comparative, single-arm study recruited 28 adults with type 1 (n = 16) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (n = 12) to evaluate 2 current insulin pumps: Medtronic Revel 723 (Pump 1), Asante Snap Insulin Pump (Pump 2). Participants were randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 assessment sequences: Pump 1 followed by Pump 2; and Pump 2 followed by Pump 1. Structured observational protocols were utilized to assess participants' ability and time required to learn/perform common tasks associated with pump setup/use. Participants used a modified version of the System Usability Scale (SUS) and investigator-developed questionnaires to rate pump usability and task difficulty; pre-post questionnaires assessed changes in attitudes toward insulin pump therapy. All participants completed the study. SUS scores showed Pump 2 to be more usable than Pump 1 on all usability attributes. Participants rated Pump 2 more positively than Pump 1, overall mean SUS scores of 5.7 versus 4.1 respectively, F(1, 52) = 32.7, P < .001, and SUS scores were higher if participants used the Pump 2 last, 5.3 versus 4.4 for Pump 1 last, F(1, 52) = 10.8, P < .01. Pump 2 was preferred for all tasks: manual bolus (86%), bolus calculation (71%), managing basal rates (93%), interpreting alarms (96%), transferring settings (100%), changing insulin and infusion sets (93%), all P < .05. Perceptions of pump usability can directly impact acceptance and use of features that may benefit those who wear them. Simpler pump devices that decrease perceptions of complexity may encourage broader use of this technology.

Indexed as

AttitudePerceptionAdultAgedBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansInjections, SubcutaneousInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBlood GlucoseInsulinCSIIinsulin pumpsMDIusability

Identifiers

PMID25269659
PMCPMC4495526
OpenAlexW1990881212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.