ArticleJournal of diabetes research2025
Diabetes Technology Accessibility in Deaf and Hard of Hearing People With Diabetes.
Article in Journal of diabetes research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Technology in Diabetes: A Year in Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) populations face higher rates of diabetes and systemic barriers accessing diabetes technology. Effective use of diabetes technology relies on sensory (e.g., visual and audible) input and interpretation by the user. This study evaluates the accessibility of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs) and insulin pumps for DHH individuals. Methods: A 2-h focus group was conducted to comprehensively evaluate the accessibility of two CGM and six insulin pumps in a sample of DHH individuals during an interactive, hands-on session. Participants used an investigator-developed 6-point Likert-like scale to score audible, haptic, and visual alarm features for each device and provided additional qualitative feedback that was captured. Observational field notes and team debriefing notes were analyzed using a thematic qualitative approach. Results: Nine diverse DHH participants living with diabetes consistently scored all devices as poor across each alarm feature. Median scores for audible, haptic and visual alarms for CGM were 2, 2.6, and 1.2 and for insulin pumps were 0.5, 2, and 0.7, respectively. The overall qualitative theme was that the evaluated diabetes technology devices were not designed to be accessible for DHH individuals. Participants noted that CGM and insulin pump companies fell short in providing audible, haptic, and visual alarms and provided several important recommendations. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of diabetes technology companies including the creative and diverse perspectives of DHH people in diabetes technology design and testing to optimize accessibility. This inclusive approach fosters innovation by integrating universal design principles that can ultimately enhance the experience for all users.
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.