Trial reportDiabetes research and clinical practice2026
Human factors in the use and efficacy of decision support technologies for type 1 diabetes: evidence from a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Diabetes research and clinical practice, 2026. 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.
- Continuous glucose monitoring, diabetes distress, and well-being in adults with type 1 diabetes: findings from a National Survey in Lithuania.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimStudies on decision support systems (DSS) for type 1 diabetes show low user engagement and marginal glycemic benefits. This work investigates the interplay between human factors and DSS use and efficacy.
methodsAdults using insulin injections or pump and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) underwent three 2-month interventions, in randomized order: i) no DSS; ii) informative DSS (iDSS), providing summary feedback for decision-making; iii) prescriptive DSS (pDSS), recommending precise treatment actions. DSS advisory modules included tools for smart bolusing and therapy optimization. Primary outcomes were CGM-derived glycemic metrics. Exploratory analyses investigated the association between glycemic outcomes, DSS use, and psychosocial variables.
resultsFifty-three participants (26 injections, 27 pump) completed the study. Glycemic outcomes did not differ between interventions. However, using iDSS vs no DSS reduced average time >180 mg/dl for participants with lower diabetes-related knowledge (-6 %, p < 0.001) and higher hemoglobin A1c (-6 %, p < 0.01). Emotional distress (p < 0.001) and hypoglycemia worry (p < 0.01) were associated with lower DSS engagement. Participants engaged more with their preferred system (p < 0.01); 40 % of them preferred iDSS.
conclusionsPersonalized feedback (iDSS) may offer an important learning tool, especially for individuals with lower diabetes-related knowledge. Addressing diabetes-related distress and hypoglycemia worry could unlock the full potential of DSS technologies.
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.