Bath MBA Student Research: Help Us Improve Diabetes Care with Your Insights on continuous glucose monitoring device (CGM)!!

G

GG.R

New Member
Relationship to Diabetes
HCP/Researcher
We Need Your Insights!

As a requirement for the MBA program by University of Bath, School of Management, we need to undertake a consulting project, known as the Integrated Project (to be worked on during the summer). In this regard, we are working with Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon, and Wiltshire Integrated Care Board (BSW ICB) to create a comprehensive, values-based decision-making framework that guides the BSW ICB in prioritising spending based on various factors for optional treatments of diabetes management.

Are you a healthcare professional, or living with diabetes, or a stakeholder in diabetes management? Your opinion matters!

Help us shape the future of diabetes care by participating in our survey on continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGMs). We're gathering feedback to develop a decision-making framework that ensures effective and efficient use of CGM technology.

Why Participate?

  • Share your experiences and needs.
  • Influence how CGMs are prioritised and funded.
  • Contribute to improving diabetes management.
Take the Survey Now! >>Link for the survey<<

Your input is invaluable. Thank you for making a difference!

"This has been approved by @AnnaDUK. This study is not affiliated with Diabetes UK."
 
Looks like it is only open to Type 2 diabetics who use CGM
 
Why do I have to give my name, what will this be used for? Isn’t research usually anonymous? I didn’t fill it in as stopped at this question.
 
Too many buzz words in the invite together with the biggest users of CGM, those with T1 diabetes, seemingly of no interest to the researchers was enough to put me off before I got to the questionnaire.
 
Lucyr said:
Why do I have to give my name, what will this be used for? Isn’t research usually anonymous? I didn’t fill it in as stopped at this question.
Click to expand...
Hello Lucyr,
Thank you for your interest.

Your name will only be used for consent purpose and will not be shared in any analysis. However, you can fill any name that you are comfortable with in this field. We have adjusted the survey according to your comments.

Thank you very much.
 
Lucyr said:
Why do I have to give my name, what will this be used for? Isn’t research usually anonymous? I didn’t fill it in as stopped at this question.
Click to expand...
Do you even qualify to do the questionnaire Lucy if your diabetes Type is not known, since it specifies Type 2? Not criticizing you giving it a go, but just wondering out loud!

I did wonder if at some point it was going to specify that you also needed to be in the catchment area of the ICBs mentioned..... but I didn't see any reference to that, so assume you don't. Considering how few Type 2s seem to manage to qualify for CGM on prescription, I am guessing they are hoping to tap into those self funding for this research, since the main users who are prescribed, Type1s .... and Type 3cs..... are excluded from the questionnaire.
 
Agree with all these earlier comments. Since T1s and T3cs are excluded, the BSW ICB and the University of Bath School of Management shows they fundamentally don't understand about the value, utility and potential of who uses CGM today.

CGM can also add value to some T2s, certainly those few who are already insulin dependent. those who are determined to put their T2 into remission. That group are, I strongly suspect, a minority. But given the current limitations of CGM (that we constant users have come to understand from our experience) I think this Study is a busted flush without a revise of who is needed to contribute.

@GG.R I think you need to go back to the drawing board and ask yourself how T2s or HCPs (the majority of whom don't have any experience of CGM) can really help your objectives. Why not open your study to anyone with diabetes and then at least get responses from those already using CGM as well as those who might think it will benefit them? That way you are at least likely to get enough participants to keep your study results statistically viable.

Currently your first objective can barely be achieved by asking people who aren't already users. How do you imagine someone not already using CGM will foresee what they need, without some in-depth understanding of what CGM could provide for them.
  • Share your experiences and needs.
  • Influence how CGMs are prioritised and funded.
  • Contribute to improving diabetes management.
You could also do worse than dig into the multitude of comments from within this Forum about CGM (good and not so good), including it's limitations.​
 
Proud to be erratic said:
Currently your first objective can barely be achieved by asking people who aren't already users.
Click to expand...
As I understand it you have to be Type 2 and using a CGM Roland.

"Why have I been invited to take part? [or Who can take part in this project?]
This project is aimed to interview different stakeholders including.

  • ICB officers who take part in decision-making 
  • ICB officers who have been working with continuous glucose monitor (CGM)
  • General Practitioners prescribing CGM 
  • Nurses involved with CGM patients 
  • Specialists in Diabetes or Endocrinologists/Consultants 
  • Pharmacists involved with CGM management
  • Type 2 Diabetic patients using CGM with age equal to or greater than 18 years old at the date of taking a survey or interview.
  • Suppliers of the devices "
 
would love to take part in this survey if it was open to all diabetics. Could have been a good opportunity to advocate for CGM's for all patients facing and having had a Total Pancreatectomy.
 
GG.R said:
Help us shape the future of diabetes care
Click to expand...
The optimal for diabetes care is prevention. If more resources were put to public information and also preventing people identified as at risk from progressing to diabetes then costs to the health service would be lower in the long term
No one ever seeks consultation with diabetics regarding what would work best for prevention
 
s'nic said:
The optimal for diabetes care is prevention. If more resources were put to public information and also preventing people identified as at risk from progressing to diabetes then costs to the health service would be lower in the long term
No one ever seeks consultation with diabetics regarding what would work best for prevention
Click to expand...

Personally, I am not sure I could have changed my diet without the kick up the pants my diabetes diagnosis gave me and I suspect many are the same. I knew that how I was eating was not healthy and I was carrying too much weight but modern society kind of allows it or even encourages it with all the advertising that we are bombarded with and temptation everywhere, it is very difficult to change.
For me, it was actually the shame of my diagnosis which helped me to change and whilst I know there is a big push by Diabetes UK to tackle the social stigma and negative attitudes to diabetes, I personally found those things helpful in motivating me to change and helping me to overcome the temptation. I appreciate that everyone is different but personally I cannot see how removing that stigma would have benefitted me or "educating" me that I was at risk of diabetes would have changed anything. If I am totally honest with hindsight, I already knew that I was pushing my luck and thinking back I shamefully believe I may even have joked about it a few times, but just thought it would never happen to me, as I am sure many do.
 
@rebrascora But for others being identified as 'at risk' does make a big difference. There are many people who can be be helped not to progress to type 2, or at a bare minimum progression can be delayed.
 
rebrascora said:
Do you even qualify to do the questionnaire Lucy if your diabetes Type is not known, since it specifies Type 2?
Click to expand...
My type on the NHS system is recorded as type 2, and my funding for CGM has followed the T2 pathway, so I think so yes
 
Proud to be erratic said:
CGM can also add value to some T2s, certainly those few who are already insulin dependent. those who are determined to put their T2 into remission. That group are, I strongly suspect, a minority. But given the current limitations of CGM (that we constant users have come to understand from our experience) I think this Study is a busted flush without a revise of who is needed to contribute.
Click to expand...
I think a CGM or three per year could be useful to a great many Type 2s. They provide a wealth of data about the impact of diet. The reason so few T2s use them is because we have to pay for them. I'd imagine it's only people with money to burn or people who are extremely serious about managing their diabetes who spend the money.

Given how expensive some of our meds are (the one I'm taking costs $780 per month in the US, no idea what the NHS pays) and how important diet is, giving out a few CGM sensors a year to T2s so they can see exactly what a big plate of rice or a pizza does to them might not be at all a bad thing.
 
GG.R said:
We Need Your Insights!

As a requirement for the MBA program by University of Bath, School of Management, we need to undertake a consulting project, known as the Integrated Project (to be worked on during the summer). In this regard, we are working with Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon, and Wiltshire Integrated Care Board (BSW ICB) to create a comprehensive, values-based decision-making framework that guides the BSW ICB in prioritising spending based on various factors for optional treatments of diabetes management.

Are you a healthcare professional, or living with diabetes, or a stakeholder in diabetes management? Your opinion matters!

Help us shape the future of diabetes care by participating in our survey on continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGMs). We're gathering feedback to develop a decision-making framework that ensures effective and efficient use of CGM technology.

Why Participate?

  • Share your experiences and needs.
  • Influence how CGMs are prioritised and funded.
  • Contribute to improving diabetes management.
Take the Survey Now! >>Link for the survey<<

Your input is invaluable. Thank you for making a difference!

"This has been approved by @AnnaDUK. This study is not affiliated with Diabetes UK."
Click to expand...
I am surprised that your study eliminates those of us with T1, unless this is being used to determine how much use sensors are to those with T2, in order to consider increasing access for those with T2.
Would it be possible to clarify this.
 
Sorry you’re getting negative feedback here but honestly, the questionnaire needs work.

Why doesn’t it ask me how much I’ve actually used a CGM to gauge my level of experience, and why doesn’t it ask how I use it. Eg do I adjust insulin doses, adjust diet, take no action, rely on alarms, etc. maybe these come up later on I gave up again on page 1.

Why is the first question number 29? Where are 1-28, am I doing it wrong? Why does it tell me why it’s important if I’m supposed to rate whether it actually is important?

What do some of these questions even mean, do you use CGM yourself? The wording is strange and doesn’t really explain what to do.

Eg here in Q30, definition below:

Efficacy: The ability of the CGM device to improve diabetes management outcomes.

But a CGM device doesnt itself improve diabetes management outcomes so how am I supposed to rate how important it is to me that the device does this when I disagree with the definition? A CGM used by someone who doesn’t know how act upon the data it provides makes no difference whatsoever to their diabetes management outcomes. No impact on a1c at all. It’s how much they understand the benefits and limitations of the device, and how much they understand about how to take action based on the results, that decided whether it impacts their a1c.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4704.png
    IMG_4704.png
    133 KB · Views: 5
  • IMG_4705.png
    IMG_4705.png
    133.5 KB · Views: 5
Lucyr said:
Sorry you’re getting negative feedback here but honestly, the questionnaire needs work.

Why doesn’t it ask me how much I’ve actually used a CGM to gauge my level of experience, and why doesn’t it ask how I use it. Eg do I adjust insulin doses, adjust diet, take no action, rely on alarms, etc. maybe these come up later on I gave up again on page 1.

Why is the first question number 29? Where are 1-28, am I doing it wrong? Why does it tell me why it’s important if I’m supposed to rate whether it actually is important?

What do some of these questions even mean, do you use CGM yourself? The wording is strange and doesn’t really explain what to do.

Eg here in Q30, definition below:

Efficacy: The ability of the CGM device to improve diabetes management outcomes.

But a CGM device doesnt itself improve diabetes management outcomes so how am I supposed to rate how important it is to me that the device does this when I disagree with the definition? A CGM used by someone who doesn’t know how act upon the data it provides makes no difference whatsoever to their diabetes management outcomes. No impact on a1c at all. It’s how much they understand the benefits and limitations of the device, and how much they understand about how to take action based on the results, that decided whether it impacts their a1c.
Click to expand...
Hi Lucyr,

Apologize to the confusing of the numbering. What you have done was correct, the questionnaire will be started from Question number 19, since Number 1-28 were used in the very first and second page (for participant information sheet and consent form already), and the numbers are automatically run by the system itself.

Thank you for your feedback. Your feedback is as important as your insights to us.

Research Team
 
Yes, thanks Barbara. But while I probably wrote in haste and didn't make it totally clear - such a study needs all CGM users contribution, not just T2s who have access to CGM. They'll struggle to find a statistically usable quantity of T2 existing CGM users. T2 medical support is within GP Surgeries, who themselves create a perception (judging by our Newbie comments and my previous and present GP Surgery experiences) that they don't understand the utility or potential of CGM - not least because their busy worlds are driven by a NICE Guidance Note and too many have stopped using their own judgement to gently push against that NICE Guidance nonsense.

I sometimes despair at the missed opportunities that ICBs and HCPs ignore. This Study might have a real utility but won't get credible replies without including all existing users of CGM.

Indeed, we could have a great time with creating our own thread with our thoughts on improving the utility of CGMs along with the implementation and funding priorities within ICBs. Since each ICB will quite blatantly do its own thing regardless of the spirit of Integration within any one Care Board, never mind from ICB to ICB, it's all a vain hope methinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top