Study Evaluates Behavioral Support Impact on CGM Use in Type 1 Diabetes

In a significant study presented at the American Diabetes Association's 85th Scientific Sessions, researchers explored the effectiveness of behavioral support in enhancing the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices among adults with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D). The findings revealed that while both groups utilizing CGM—one receiving behavioral support and the other not—showed reductions in A1c levels and diabetes distress, there was no statistically significant difference in A1c outcomes between the two groups.

Conducted by Dr. Molly L. Tanenbaum and her team at Stanford University School of Medicine, the randomized controlled trial involved 134 adults aged 35 on average, with a significant majority (77%) being women. The participants were recruited from various clinics and T1D organizations across the United States, and were randomly assigned to receive either CGM alone or CGM in conjunction with the ONBOARD behavioral intervention for a duration of three months. The ONBOARD intervention comprised four biweekly one-on-one virtual sessions focusing on overcoming barriers associated with CGM use, including data management and social concerns.

According to Dr. Tanenbaum, “The study highlights the essential role of CGM in diabetes management. Notably, a high percentage of participants continued to use CGM after 12 months, indicating its long-term viability.” At the twelve-month mark, 80% of participants in the ONBOARD group and 71% in the CGM-only group reported active use of their devices. Both groups experienced significant reductions in A1c levels, with a p-value of less than 0.05, indicating statistical significance. Furthermore, the results showed a notable decrease in diabetes distress scores (p < 0.001) across both groups, although the CGM-only group experienced greater reductions at the three-month evaluation.

The implications of this study are substantial for diabetes management protocols. Continuous glucose monitoring has become a standard of care for T1D, particularly when used in combination with automated insulin delivery systems. These findings could influence healthcare providers' approaches to integrating behavioral support into diabetes care strategies.

However, the study's abstract did not discuss specific limitations, raising questions about the generalizability of the results. The potential biases and the variability in individual responses to behavioral interventions might warrant further investigation.

As diabetes technology continues to evolve, the significance of CGM devices in patient adherence and management cannot be overstated. The ongoing discourse on the integration of behavioral support in medical interventions will likely shape future research and clinical practices in the field of endocrinology. The findings from this study will be crucial as diabetes care evolves to prioritize both technological and psychological aspects of patient management.