ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2025
Disparities in diabetes technology utilization in youth with diabetes.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From algorithm to alarm: a narrative review on insulin delivery innovation.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes technology can improve glycemic variability and diabetes outcomes, but there are disparities in patient use.
aimsIdentify racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in technology utilization and determine provider-, patient-, and parent-identified barriers.
methodsTechnology (continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and pump) usage and demographic data on patients at a large urban pediatric hospital were obtained from a clinical database. Providers (16 attending physicians, five fellow physicians, five nurse practitioners, 13 diabetes educators) completed a survey on diabetes technology prescribing habits. English and Spanish-speaking patients ages 8 to 17 years with diabetes (n=109) and caregivers of pediatric patients with diabetes (n=117) completed surveys that assessed attitudes and perceived benefits/burdens of diabetes technology.
resultsFrom August 2020 to 2021, independent of insurance payor status, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and Hispanic youth with type 1 diabetes were less likely to use pump therapy (OR 0.4 and 0.35, respectively) or CGM (OR 0.74 and 0.54) compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) youth. For pump eligibility, diabetes educators placed higher importance on subjective factors such as parental education, health literacy, and psychosocial stability (p value <0.05) compared with physicians. Hispanic and NHB patients and parents learned about diabetes technology later after diabetes diagnosis compared with NHW patients/caregivers. Physicians and diabetes educators, but not patients themselves, identified patient-perceived barriers to CGM use (ie, embarrassment and/or discomfort in wearing devices) as reasons for not utilizing diabetes technology.
conclusionsThere are marked disparities in diabetes technology use among youth with diabetes. Findings from the provider surveys showed reliance on subjective variables as opposed to objective criteria. Youth with diabetes and caregivers of underrepresented race/ethnicities learned about diabetes technology later and were less likely to use technology. Though clinic providers perceived multiple barriers to technology utilization, responses from families showed low perceived burden and highly positive attitudes.
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.