ArticleActa diabetologica2026
Identifying barriers to diabetes technology use: LIFESTEPS, a newly developed clinical support tool for healthcare professionals.
Article in Acta diabetologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPsychosocial, behavioural, and lifestyle-related barriers can substantially affect the uptake, continued use, and discontinuation of diabetes technology in people with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D). However, structured tools to support healthcare professionals (HCPs) in systematically exploring these barriers in routine care remain limited. To address this gap, a clinically oriented questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of diabetes experts. This paper describes the development of the questionnaire and its preliminary evaluation in terms of clarity, comprehensibility, usability, relevance, and perceived acceptability.
methodsA panel of 12 diabetes experts from 11 countries across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) reviewed the literature on barriers to diabetes technology use, grouped these barriers into key thematic domains, and developed a structured questionnaire that was translated into multiple languages. The questionnaire then underwent a two-round end-user evaluation involving HCPs and PWT1D to assess clarity, comprehensibility, practicality, relevance, and potential bias. Feedback from the first round informed refinement of the questionnaire before reassessment in a second round. The evaluation was descriptive and focused on end-user feedback; formal psychometric testing and hypothesis-driven validation analyses were not undertaken.
resultsThe expert panel named the questionnaire LIFESTEPS, reflecting its core thematic domains. The questionnaire covers the following areas of discussion related to barriers to technology: psychological and relational aspects of diabetes, experience with technology and body image, and anticipation and adaptation to new technology. In the first evaluation round, feedback was obtained from 19 HCPs and 37 PWT1D recruited by panel members. Following revision of the questionnaire, a second round involving 5 HCPs and 7 PWT1D was conducted to reassess clarity and usability. Overall, participants reported that the final version of the questionnaire was understandable, perceived as easy to complete, and potentially useful for supporting discussion of barriers to diabetes technology use in clinical practice.
conclusionsLIFESTEPS is a newly developed, multilingual clinical support tool designed to facilitate structured discussion of psychosocial and lifestyle-related barriers to diabetes technology use. The findings provide preliminary support for its clarity, acceptability, and perceived clinical usefulness. Further psychometric and prospective clinical evaluation is needed before broader analytical or predictive applications can be considered. Accordingly, LIFESTEPS should be interpreted as a preliminary conversation-support tool rather than as a validated measurement instrument.
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.