» Articles » PMID: 38476216

The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors, Social Determinants, and Ethnicity on the Utilization of Glucose Sensor Technology Among Persons with Diabetes Mellitus: a Narrative Review

Overview
Specialty Endocrinology
Date 2024 Mar 13
PMID 38476216
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) usage has been shown to improve disease outcomes in people living with diabetes by facilitating better glycemic management. However, previous research has suggested that access to these devices can be influenced by nonmedical factors such as socioeconomic status and ethnicity. It is critical that equitable access to CGM devices is ensured as people from those groups experience poorer diabetes-related health outcomes. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of the various healthcare systems worldwide and how socioeconomic status, social context, and ethnicity shape device usage and the associated health outcomes. In general, we found that having a lower socioeconomic status and belonging to an ethnic minority group negatively impact CGM usage. While financial means proved to be an important mediator in this process, it was not the sole driver as disparities persisted even after adjustment for factors such as income and insurance status. Recommendations to increase CGM usage for people of a lower socioeconomic status and ethnic minorities include increasing the availability of financial, administrative, and educational support, for both patients and healthcare providers. However, recommendations will vary due to local country-specific circumstances, such as reimbursement criteria and healthcare ecosystems.

Citing Articles

Tailoring nursing interventions to empower patients: personal coping strategies and self-management in type 2 diabetes care.

Ibrahim A, Gano F, Abdel-Aziz H, Elneblawi N, Zaghamir D, Negm L BMC Nurs. 2024; 23(1):926.

PMID: 39702241 PMC: 11657351. DOI: 10.1186/s12912-024-02573-w.


Trends in Intermittent Scanning Continuous Glucose Monitoring Usage in The Netherlands-An Opportunity for Elderly Individuals with Diabetes.

Been R, Gans R, Choudhary P, van Beek A, van Dijk P J Clin Med. 2024; 13(23).

PMID: 39685759 PMC: 11642688. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13237301.


Time for a Reframe: Shifting Focus From Continuous Glucose Monitor Uptake to Sustainable Use to Optimize Outcomes.

Mayberry L, Nelson L, Bergner E, Raymond J, Tanenbaum M, Jaser S J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024; :19322968241268560.

PMID: 39143688 PMC: 11572238. DOI: 10.1177/19322968241268560.

References
1.
Seidel D, Boggio Mesnil F, Caruso A . Reimbursement Pathways for New Diabetes Technologies in Europe: Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018; 13(1):118-122. PMC: 6313292. DOI: 10.1177/1932296818789175. View

2.
Wong J, Foster N, Maahs D, Raghinaru D, Bergenstal R, Ahmann A . Real-time continuous glucose monitoring among participants in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care. 2014; 37(10):2702-9. PMC: 4392936. DOI: 10.2337/dc14-0303. View

3.
Tsai D, Flores Garcia J, Fogel J, Wee C, Reid M, Raymond J . Diabetes Technology Experiences Among Latinx and Non-Latinx Youth with Type 1 Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021; 16(4):834-843. PMC: 9264427. DOI: 10.1177/19322968211029260. View

4.
Lee M, Tanenbaum M, Maahs D, Prahalad P . Overcoming Barriers to Diabetes Technology in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Public Insurance: Cases and Call to Action. Case Rep Endocrinol. 2022; 2022:9911736. PMC: 8904094. DOI: 10.1155/2022/9911736. View

5.
Talbo M, Katz A, Dostie M, Legault L, Brazeau A . Associations Between Socioeconomic Status and Patient Experience With Type 1 Diabetes Management and Complications: Cross-sectional Analysis of a Cohort From Québec, Canada. Can J Diabetes. 2022; 46(6):569-577. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2022.02.008. View