Acceptability and feasibility of continuous glucose monitoring in people with diabetes: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence

Jennifer V E Brown, Ramzi Ajjan, Najma Siddiqi, Peter A Coventry, Jennifer V E Brown, Ramzi Ajjan, Najma Siddiqi, Peter A Coventry

Abstract

Background: Good glycaemic control is a crucial part of diabetes management. Traditional assessment methods, including HbA1c checks and self-monitoring of blood glucose, can be unreliable and inaccurate. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers a non-invasive and more detailed alternative. Availability of this technology is increasing worldwide. However, there is no current comprehensive evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of these devices. This is a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence about acceptability and feasibility of CGM in people with diabetes.

Methods: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL for qualitative and quantitative evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of CGM in all populations with diabetes (any type) using search terms for "continuous glucose monitoring" and "diabetes". We will not apply any study-type filters. Searches will be restricted to studies conducted in humans and those published from 2011 onwards. We will not restrict the search by language. Study selection and data extraction will be carried out by two reviewers independently using Rayyan and Eppi-Reviewer, respectively, with disagreements resolved by discussion. Data extraction will include key information about each study, as well as qualitative evidence in the form of participant quotes from primary studies and themes and subthemes based on the authors' analysis. Quantitative data relating to acceptability and feasibility including data loss, adherence, and quantitative ratings of acceptability will be extracted as means and standard deviations or n/N as appropriate. Qualitative evidence will be analysed using framework analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Where possible, quantitative evidence will be combined using random-effects meta-analysis; otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. The most appropriate method for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings will be selected based on the data available.

Discussion: Ongoing assessment of the acceptability of interventions has been identified as crucially important to scale-up and implementation. This review will provide new knowledge with the potential to inform a programme theory of CGM as well as future roll-out to potentially vulnerable populations, including those with severe mental illness.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021255141.

Keywords: Continuous glucose monitoring; Diabetes; Integrative synthesis; Mixed methods; Qualitative; Quantitative.

Conflict of interest statement

RA received honoraria, consultancy fees and research funding from Abbott Diabetes Care. JVEB, NS, and PAC declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

References

    1. Newman S, Steed L, Mulligan K. Self-management interventions for chronic illness. Lancet. 2004;364(9444):1523–1537. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17277-2.
    1. Nobis S, Lehr D, Ebert DD, Baumeister H, Snoek F, Riper H, et al. Efficacy of a web-based intervention with mobile phone support in treating depressive symptoms in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(5):776–783. doi: 10.2337/dc14-1728.
    1. Funtanilla VD, Candidate P, Caliendo T, Hilas O. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of available systems. Pharm Ther. 2019;44(9):550–553.
    1. Ajjan RA. How can we realize the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring? Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S2):S-27–S-36. doi: 10.1089/dia.2017.0021.
    1. Becker T, Hux J. Risk of acute complications of diabetes among people with schizophrenia in Ontario, Canada. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(2):398–402. doi: 10.2337/dc10-1139.
    1. Johnson ML, Martens TW, Criego AB, Carlson AL, Simonson GD, Bergenstal RM. Utilizing the ambulatory glucose profile to standardize and implement continuous glucose monitoring in clinical practice. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(S2):S2-17–S2-25. doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0034.
    1. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Cheng P, Kollman C, Carlson AL, Johnson ML, et al. The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(4):614–626. doi: 10.1177/1932296818822496.
    1. Malandrucco I, Russo B, Picconi F, Menduni M, Frontoni S. Glycemic status assessment by the latest glucose monitoring technologies. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(21):8243. doi: 10.3390/ijms21218243.
    1. Ong WM, Chua SS, Ng CJ. Barriers and facilitators to self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes using insulin: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:237–246.
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman SV. What is so tough about self-monitoring of blood glucose? Perceived obstacles among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2014;31(1):40–46. doi: 10.1111/dme.12275.
    1. Ward JEF, Stetson BA, Mokshagundam SPL. Patient perspectives on self-monitoring of blood glucose: perceived recommendations, behaviors and barriers in a clinic sample of adults with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015;14(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s40200-015-0172-z.
    1. Wood A, O'Neal D, Furler J, Ekinci EI. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of the evidence, opportunities for future use and ongoing challenges. Intern Med J. 2018;48(5):499–508. doi: 10.1111/imj.13770.
    1. Chen C, Zhao X-L, Li Z-H, Zhu Z-G, Qian S-H, Flewitt AJ. Current and emerging technology for continuous glucose monitoring. Sensors. 2017;17(1):182. doi: 10.3390/s17010182.
    1. Cappon G, Vettoretti M, Sparacino G, Facchinetti A. Continuous glucose monitoring sensors for diabetes management: a review of technologies and applications. Diabetes Metab J. 2019;43(4):383–397. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2019.0121.
    1. Lin R, Brown F, James S, Jones J, Ekinci E. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of the evidence in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2021;n/a(n/a):e14528.
    1. Bruttomesso D, Laviola L, Avogaro A, Bonora E, Del Prato S, Frontoni S, et al. The use of real time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring in the management of diabetes: a consensus view of Italian diabetes experts using the Delphi method. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;29(5):421–431. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2019.01.018.
    1. International Diabetes Federation . Global guidelines for type 2 diabetes. 2012.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guideline: type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management. Draft for consultation 2021 [Available from: ]. Accessed 5 Dec 2021.
    1. NHS England . Flash glucose monitoring: national arrangements for funding of relevant diabetes patients. 2020.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guideline: type 2 diabetes in adults: management. Draft for consultation 2021 [Available from: ]. Accessed 5 Dec 2021.
    1. García-Moreno R, Benítez-Valderrama P, Barquiel B, González Pérez-de-Villar N, Hillman N, Lora Pablos D, et al. Efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring on maternal and neonatal outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Diabet Med. 2022;39:e14703. doi: 10.1111/dme.14703.
    1. World Health Organization . Scaling up projects and initiatives for better health: from concepts to practice. 2016.
    1. Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence . Increasing the scale of population health interventions: a guide. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health; 2014.
    1. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2061.
    1. Reilly S, Olier I, Planner C, Doran T, Reeves D, Ashcroft DM, et al. Inequalities in physical comorbidity: a longitudinal comparative cohort study of people with severe mental illness in the UK. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009010. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009010.
    1. Ward M, Druss B. The epidemiology of diabetes in psychotic disorders. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(5):431–451. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00007-3.
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
    1. Ang E, Lee ZX, Moore S, Nana M. Flash glucose monitoring (FGM): a clinical review on glycaemic outcomes and impact on quality of life. J Diabetes Complications. 2020;34(6):107559. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2020.107559.
    1. Leelarathna L, Wilmot EG. Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring. Diabet Med. 2018;35(4):472–482. doi: 10.1111/dme.13584.
    1. Poolsup N, Suksomboon N, Kyaw AM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in diabetes. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2013;5(1):39. doi: 10.1186/1758-5996-5-39.
    1. Vigersky R, Shrivastav M. Role of continuous glucose monitoring for type 2 in diabetes management and research. J Diabetes Complications. 2017;31(1):280–287. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.10.007.
    1. Kamusheva M, Tachkov K, Dimitrova M, Mitkova Z, García-Sáez G, Hernando ME, et al. A systematic review of collective evidences investigating the effect of diabetes monitoring systems and their application in health care. Front Endocrinol. 2021;12(178).
    1. Langendam M, Luijf YM, Hooft L, DeVries JH, Mudde AH, Scholten R. Continuous glucose monitoring systems for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1.
    1. Brown JVE, Coventry P, Siddiqi N, Ajjan R. Acceptability and feasibility of continuous glucose monitoring in people with diabetes: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence 2021 [Available from: ]. Accessed 19 Nov 2021.
    1. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. BMC Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
    1. Pluye P, Hong Q, Vedel I. Toolkit for mixed studies reviews (V3) Quebec: Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, and Quebec-SPOR SUPPORT Unit; 2016.
    1. The EndNote Team . EndNote. EndNote X9 ed. Philadelphia: Clarivate; 2013.
    1. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. BMC Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
    1. Thomas J, Graziosi S, Brunton J, Ghouze Z, O'Driscoll P, Bond M. EPPI-Reviewer: advanced software for systematic reviews, maps, and ecidence synthesis. EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London; 2020.
    1. Christiansen M, Klaff L, Bailey T, Brazg R, Carlson G, Tweden K. A prospective multicenter evaluation of the accuracy and safety of an implanted continuous glucose sensor: the PRECISION study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(5):231–237. doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0020.
    1. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8.
    1. Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893.
    1. Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada. 2018.
    1. Ames H, Glenton C, Lewin S. Purposive sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: a worked example from a synthesis on parental perceptions of vaccination communication. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0665-4.
    1. Balogun-Katung A, Carswell C, Brown JVE, Coventry P, Ajjan R, Alderson S, et al. Exploring the facilitators, barriers, and strategies for self-management in adults living with severe mental illness, with and without long-term conditions: a qualitative evidence synthesis. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0258937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258937.
    1. Abfalter D, Mueller-Seeger J, Raich M. Translation decisions in qualitative research: a systematic framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2021;24(4):469–486. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2020.1805549.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–926. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual) PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895.
    1. Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, Garside R, Harden A, Lewin S, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.020.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003;327(7414):557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Coventry PA, Meader N, Melton H, Temple M, Dale H, Wright K, et al. Psychological and pharmacological interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid mental health problems following complex traumatic events: systematic review and component network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(8):e1003262. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003262.
    1. Higgins J, Li H, Deeks J. Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: JPT H, J T, J C, M C, T L, MJ P, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 63: Cochrane; 2022.
    1. Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: JPT H, J T, J C, M C, T L, MJ P, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 63: Cochrane; 2022.
    1. Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4002.
    1. Reeves B, Deeks J, Higgins J, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells G, et al. Chapter 24: Including non-randomized studies on intervention effects. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 62 (updated February 2021): Cochrane. 2021.
    1. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Rodgers M, Britten N. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. 2006.
    1. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6890.
    1. Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J. “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37.
    1. Flemming K, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at? Int J Qual Methods. 2021;20:1609406921993276. doi: 10.1177/1609406921993276.
    1. Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. BMC Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2.
    1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) NIHR Annual Report 2019/20. 2021.
    1. Pollock A, Campbell P, Synnot A, Smith M, Morley R. Patient and public involvement in systematic reviews 2021 [Available from: ]. Accessed 12 Oct 2021.
    1. Chadwick A, Street C, McAndrew S, Deacon M. Minding our own bodies: reviewing the literature regarding the perceptions of service users diagnosed with serious mental illness on barriers to accessing physical health care. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2012;21(3):211–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0349.2011.00807.x.
    1. De Hert M, Cohen D, Bobes J, Cetkovich-Bakmas M, Leucht S, Ndetei DM, et al. Physical illness in patients with severe mental disorders. II. Barriers to care, monitoring and treatment guidelines, plus recommendations at the system and individual level. World Psychiatry. 2011;10(2):138–151. doi: 10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00036.x.
    1. Karim MA, Al-Baz N, Ouanes S, Khalil A, Assar AH, Alsiddiqi A, et al. Quality of diabetes care in patients with schizophrenia: a case-control study in Qatar. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03121-5.
    1. van Hasselt FM, Oud MJT, Loonen AJM. Improvement of care for the physical health of patients with severe mental illness: a qualitative study assessing the view of patients and families. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):426. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-426.
    1. Firth J, Cotter J, Torous J, Bucci S, Firth JA, Yung AR. Mobile phone ownership and endorsement of “mHealth” among people with psychosis: a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. Schizophr Bull. 2016;42(2):448–455. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbv132.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Diabetes, type 1 and type 2 - continuous glucose monitoring in adults. Review questions 2021 [Available from: ]. Accessed 5 Dec 2021.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe