↓ Skip to main content

Experiences of closed-loop insulin delivery among pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetic Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Experiences of closed-loop insulin delivery among pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes
Published in
Diabetic Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1111/dme.13406
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Farrington, Z. A. Stewart, K. Barnard, R. Hovorka, H. R. Murphy

Abstract

To explore the experiences of pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes, and the relationships between perceptions of glucose control, attitudes to technology and glycaemic responses with regard to closed-loop insulin delivery. We recruited 16 pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes [mean ± sd age 34.1 ± 4.6 years, duration of diabetes 23.6 ± 7.2 years, baseline HbA1c 51±5 mmol/mol (6.8 ± 0.6%)] to a randomized crossover trial of sensor-augmented pump therapy vs automated closed-loop therapy. Questionnaires (Diabetes Technology Questionnaire, Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey) were completed before and after each intervention, with qualitative interviews at baseline and follow-up. Women described the benefits and burdens of closed-loop systems during pregnancy. Feelings of improved glucose control, excitement and empowerment were counterbalanced by concerns about device visibility, obsessive data checking and diminished attentiveness to hyper- and hypoglycaemia symptoms. Responding to questionnaires, 80% of participants felt less worry about overnight hypoglycaemia and that diabetes 'did not run their lives'; however, 45% reported that closed-loop increased time thinking about diabetes, and 33% felt it made sleep and preventing hyperglycaemia more problematic. Women slightly overestimated their glycaemic response to closed-loop therapy. Most became more positive in their technology attitudes throughout pregnancy. Women with more positive technology attitudes had higher degrees of overestimation, and poorer levels of glycaemic control. Women displayed complex psychosocial responses to closed-loop therapy in pregnancy. Perceptions of glycaemic response may diverge from biomedical data. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Unspecified 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Unspecified 8 16%
Psychology 6 12%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,737,838
of 13,796,475 outputs
Outputs from Diabetic Medicine
#827
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,727
of 267,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetic Medicine
#21
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,796,475 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.